Erik Schmidt says:

Spot on, Nicole. It's fascinating (and appalling) to me that so many big name sites let their brands be devalued by downright misleading ads. Giving control of a huge amount of your screen space to an ad network that doesn't respect your visitors implicates you by association.

May 17, 2010 9:37 AM

yatesc says:

Please, please stop using 'curated' as a synonym for 'chose'.

http://newcurator.com/2010/03/you-are-not-a-curator/

"When I asked what the most important function of curators was, we saw how complex and varied the job was and not a single person said “selecting“."

(Other than that pet peeve, though, it was an excellent post.)

May 17, 2010 9:39 AM

Mark says:

It seems so simple and straightforward, but so many sites just don't get it.

Irrelevant, blinking, vibrating ads (or those stupid belly ads) on any site will make me do one of the following:

1. Block your ads
2. Find what I'm looking for elsewhere.

May 17, 2010 9:45 AM

Seb says:

"Even though there are a lot of ads, they are integrated well"

I disagree. It's a mess and a disservice to your readers to put more ads on a page than content. Look at Daring Fireball: it has only one ad. That's enough.

May 17, 2010 9:58 AM

Ian says:

I think the ads intrusion on you experience have way more impact than how they look or what they are selling. I can't believe some big sites like Dev Shed are so mangled up that the ads sometimes even overlap the content so you can't even read it. Ads that popup huge bubbles when you roll over them, and ad links are also very annoying. I don't really mind ads of any kind as long as they do not interrupt my experience, that's usually when I hit the close tab and go to the next site.

May 17, 2010 10:06 AM

Mikael H says:

This is also true from the advertisers perspective. I work as an Art Director and we are very careful where we display the brands we handle. If you run a good site and only allow relevant and high quality ads it's all the more likely that the big brands will approach you.

May 17, 2010 10:07 AM

wide-eyed says:

@yatesc Perhaps an undeserved pet peeve, since curate/curator comes from more religious backgrounds, then the more common use of museum curators. But the term does mean, 'person who is invested with the care of'.

Not that I disagree that the term is becoming overused and abused. But Nicole's use was appropriate, if wrong. The wrong being, the word already implies, "with care". So the sentence should have read, "These ads were curated." NOT "These ads were curated with care."

But Nicole's point is well put, nonetheless.

May 17, 2010 10:08 AM

Mike Monteiro says:

Chose. Curated. Hitler.

Must every comment thread devolve into a pedantic peevish argument? Honestly, the internet gets the comments it deserves.

May 17, 2010 10:34 AM

kwyjibo says:

The ads you show are part of your brand. With print, television, and radio, this has always been true.

Yet web properties generally farm it out to a third party, who, many a time have ruined a site.

May 17, 2010 10:38 AM

Daniel says:

Gawker: The Vice Guide to Creating a Successful Publishing Empire
http://gawker.com/5408916/the-vice-guide-to-creating-a-successful-publishing-empire

DON'T: Let Sketchers [sic] Advertise in Your Magazine

"But while Vice's reach is global, it remains targeted at a large niche and advertisers are required to fit with this brand image. For example, it has rejected advertisers, such as footwear giant Sketchers, [sic] when they have not fit with its image."

May 17, 2010 10:56 AM

Dick Applebaum says:

@Seb

Great points!

BTW, are you the former Seb Hughs?

May 17, 2010 10:59 AM

yatesc says:

Mike — You see my pet peeve, and raise me one. Well played, sir. I raise you "I hate people who complain about the level of discourse in comment threads and in doing so contribute nothing to the discussion."

Back to the actual discussion, though, Wide-Eyed's comment makes sense (that we're ignoring the older and more established definition of 'curator'. To me, 'picking ads' is only a small part of caring for a website. Just my opinion, though. It would be wonderful if websites were better cared for as a whole (Dustin Curtis' experience w/ aa.com being a great example of this)... hopefully Ms Jones' post will provoke at least one website to reevaluate its ad policy.

May 17, 2010 11:13 AM

PeteyZ says:

This may have already been said, but, I'm sorry, your example, to me anyway, is hideous. HALF the page is ads. I can't even tell what the site's about at first glance. It's ALL an ad. I understand your point, but your example is of what not to do, in my mind. But I hate all ads....

May 17, 2010 11:43 AM

Steve Nicholson says:

I wouldn't visit a site if the page was half ad content. I like my version that appears on my screen better: http://bit.ly/dxpqag

May 17, 2010 1:03 PM

Erika Hall says:

For many websites and publications, ads are (or could be if they were done well) an integral part of the experience. For example Dieline (above), Google, any lifestyle publication.

(Steve, I suspect you aren't in the target market for the September issue of Vogue.)

Pre-Craigslist this was totally the case for newspapers. Help-wanted ads, department store sales, movie listings were all a very welcome part of the newspaper experience and core to its function.

Because the online ad model is still evolving—a state of uncertainty that invites both greed and fear—a lot of crap has crept in. However, a conscientious, brand-aware, and audience-oriented ad strategy can improve, not merely underwrite, the overall experience.

May 17, 2010 2:55 PM

Michael Logue says:

"Even though there are a lot of ads, they are integrated well"

They are so well integrated that, to me, they appear as one indigestible blob which I find I can easily ignore. At least I will stay on that site for the content, rather then avoid because the ads make the content unreadable.

May 17, 2010 3:49 PM

Chris M says:

Awesome post, I think most people don't realise this!

May 19, 2010 5:08 AM