Dilemma Friday: Would You Advertise Her Wares?
Friday, August 14, 2009Posted in: Dilemma of the week
We might as well continue with this week’s theme eh?
This week’s dilemma is as follows:
You run a very popular blog, that’s visited by all and sundry, far and wide. In order to keep the blog running, you post adverts on the site. By doing this, you generate fairly good revenue that enables you to run competitions, and do other pretty nifty stuff.
One day, you get a request from an author who as well as writing the kind of stuff that you mightily disapprove of, also has a history of being an asshole online. You really don’t like this woman.
Your top advertising spot is available, and she’s willing to pay.
What do you do? Do you take her money, because you figure that her greens are as good as anybody else’s, or do you tell her thanks, but no thanks, because you just don’t want her associated with your blog in any way?
What would you do?
SarahT
August 14
8:25 am
I would refuse to run her ad. Surprise, surprise!
Seriously, this whole debate has made me thankful that I don’t have ads on my blog and therefore I’m not confronted with this sort of dilemma.
Maili
August 14
8:57 am
I would refuse.
Leontine
August 14
9:09 am
I would refuse simply because this kind of author does not reflect the writing and attitude I would want to promote for the genre on my blog.
maddie
August 14
11:52 am
No I wouldn’t, isn’t that like selling your soul if money is to be had by compromising your beliefs.
Shiloh Walker
August 14
12:07 pm
I wouldn’t run the ad-for both reasons. The stuff she writes may sell, but it sells to a niche market-and that’s not my niche. Also, her attitude sucks rotten eggs.
Diana Castilleja
August 14
12:13 pm
I don’t answer to anyone for my blog-I’m a solo gig. 🙂 But I go with what Shiloh said. Personally, I find her story themes distasteful (politely), and very niche. I’m very open. E and a friend introduced me to my first M/M, but I wouldn’t do this on principle of my own standards. Others may do as they wish. I’m not them. *shrug*
Las
August 14
12:20 pm
No I wouldn’t. The author being a batshit crazy asshole is the problem for me, not so much the writing. Not that I don’t think the theme is disgusting, but that’s not enough for me to turn down money. The fact that I’d “witnessed” her losing her shit several times would completely turn me off, even if her stories were fantastic.
Marianne McA
August 14
1:27 pm
Taken me all week to think this through. At the danger of straying into political waters, in the past I bought a copy of Gerry Adams’ autobiography. Now for me, since I’ve been old enough to think, he’s a man I’ve no time for. YMMV. But still, I think he has a right to write a book, I’ve the right to buy and read it, and newspapers have a right to advertise the book.
If I ran a political blog, and he had wanted to advertise the book, I would have thought that acceptable, even though I might despise things he has done.
On the other hand, if the content of the book was objectionable, if A. Randomer wrote a book called ‘Date Rape for Dummies’, I wouldn’t think it appropriate to advertise that book in any circumstances whatsoever, even if lack of funding meant the blog had to close.
So basically, while I might or might not choose to run an advert for an author I personally disliked, I wouldn’t feel there was anything wrong about taking their money. Someone you hate may write something worth reading.
But, if the material in the book was something I objected to, I’d feel it would be wrong to promote that book to my readership.
(Not that I have a blog.)
Lori
August 14
1:34 pm
To take her money ties you to her on a level. Whether you love or hate the book/subject/author, by accepting her money you’ve created a relationship between the two of you.
I do not wish that relationship in any way in my life.
West
August 14
1:56 pm
Again, similar to my response in another post, I would not run the ad. I would feel as if I were promoting, or others would percieve that I was promoting, her books. I would be uncomfortable with that. I sort of have this strange desire to keep being able to look at myself in the mirror.
JulieLeto
August 14
3:56 pm
No way, no how. It’s my site and I have every right to refuse to take an ad from someone who annoys me. If my blog is that popular, I’ll find someone else to take the ad.
Katiebabs
August 14
4:15 pm
Question: is not taking the ad censorship? Money talks for a lot of people. It all comes down to how much you need the money and how comfortable you are running it.
If the author did something horrible to me personally, or someone I cared about, I would pass on running the ad. But if I was really rubbed the wrong way by the author and have been outspoken about the author in the past, I would refuse.
Anon
August 14
4:35 pm
http://chancery-is-delusional.com
Laura
August 14
4:44 pm
I just can’t help but wonder how many of the now-outraged readers actually noticed and were offended by that ad before Karen began posting about it. And then posted about it again. And again………..
amousie
August 14
4:46 pm
Depends. How much ad revenue do I need to pay for my hosting service? How much time do I need to devote monthly to vetting the individual product/ads? Are there any potential legal ramifications for refusing the ad? (CBS, NBC, The NY Times have legal staffs or retainers as well as the revenue to go to court over the issue but I don’t.) Do I need to have written legalese on my website to protect myself? Etc.
Also I have lots of biases and all kinds of writing, or rather themes, I don’t really “approve of.” So if I go through all of the above and say no to her ad where’s my line in the sand? And will that line change from day to day depending whether the author requesting the ad space is an asshole that day or for that matter if she writes a book that I can finally “approve of.”
So my answer is “yes” I would run the ad as long as it followed my sites guidelines for ad appropriateness and it wasn’t illegal. Money is money unless there’s something more than my personal disapproval to deny her the ad space (assuming there’s an open spot that I haven’t been able to fill it to begin with). If money is no object to my blogging enterprise then sure I can deny her.
Flipside: Would anyone here pay a subscription fee to a blogger or blogging site to have all ads removed in order to pay for the hosting fees (not basic hosting with 3-6 million hits per month), contests, nifty etc.?
PS. So how do you feel about the ads for Oprah’s site? A few years ago, Oprah was going on about this big change your life by changing your diet/lifestyle program which viewers were encouraged to signup for on her website). They asked people to read labels for corn syrup, sodium content, etc. and here are these big ads for McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets, Hersey Syrup, Kraft Salad dressing all over her website.
Should Oprah have refused to run those ads on her website? After all, they were part of what she was asking people to give up for a healthier lifestyle.
Diane V
August 14
5:02 pm
I would not run the ad, because I have a couple of authors that I used to like that I no longer read because they are such creeps on line when responding to any type of criticism of their books or viewpoints they disagree with — Catherine Coulter, Katie MacAlister and Deborah Smith to name a few.
If the blog ran the ad of someone “questionable” I’d have to say I’d probably think twice about the blogger and why I’m visiting her blog.
Karen Scott
August 14
5:33 pm
Sheesh, there is nothing more annoying than spam and spammers. Thank gawd for the delete button.
sallahdog
August 14
5:51 pm
I would probably run the ad… Since once you start deciding on the grounds of “I don’t like this book, or author” I would get into a hairy situation (I dont like a LOT of books or authors) that would drive me nuts..
So unless she personally cooked my bunny, yeah… I would run the ad…
I am a landlord, I don’t like a LOT of my tenants.. but as long as they aren’t breaking the law, and paying the rent, they get to stay…
Bailey
August 14
6:26 pm
I’ve been kept abreast of this discussion by my husband and decided to put my 2 cents in. Hope no one minds.
I honestly do believe romance is a relevant term, just like Horror and Sci-Fi. I remember reading Bradbury’s Something Wicked This Way Comes and thinking, interesting story, but this is not Science Fiction (and I believe the author himself concurs). And after reading Stephen King’s Dolores Claiborne I felt it wasn’t horror in any sense of the word. But my opinions certainly don’t impact how these books are marketed. And so I tend to think publishers generally decide what genre a book is advertised and promoted as.
With this said, I don’t think SB has fallen from grace by running the CS ad. Their regular avid fans will probably find the controversy an interesting topic of discussion at best. Those who weren’t overwhelmed in the first place by their alleged expertise on Romance will have more to grin about and just another reason not to visit there. Those who have mentioned that the author will get more attention for the controversy are probably correct. It may not do her sales any good, but from her public behavior I think this author takes greater delight in annoying people than writing. And maybe this is exactly what she and her publisher/significant-other were going for in the first place by buying the ad placement. Along with CS’s strange online behavior, e.g. praising the smell of menstrual blood, calling herself God and getting herself banned from threads, the publisher/significant-other himself appears to have little use for keeping happy neighbor relations
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/shelved-the-book-that-outraged-the-orkneys-1712238.html
IMHO, CS and her publisher want to be seen as the victims of censorship and consciously work to obtain that status. It is pathetic, but for the SBs to remove the ad to appease public opinion will only feed the martyr needs of both author and publisher. As for the discussions, I think they help keep the public forewarned. It’s like some examples of disgusting modern art work; while I don’t feel artistic expression should be censored, I sure appreciate knowing who is making and who is cashing in on stuff I might find personally repulsive if just to avoid unwittingly stumbling onto it.
Thanks Karen. Hope that wasn’t too wordy.
AztecLady
August 14
6:38 pm
Bailey–and everyone else–please please please:
Neither Karen nor SarahT nor I have asked for the ad to be removed.
Can we be clear on that, pretty please?
Thank you.
sallahdog
August 14
6:42 pm
I think most of us get that AL, your not asking them to substitute your judgement from their own, just figuring out where you would draw the line..
Personally I find it fascinating, because when I first thought about it, I thought I would be a lot more judgemental than I find I am about this issue…
I am either mellowing with age, or I have become too greedy for the green…
Bailey
August 14
7:18 pm
Oh no, AL, I didn’t mean to imply any of you had. Just giving my opinion for those who might be considering it. Sorry if it sounded like I thought you did!
Emmy
August 14
7:24 pm
I would have run the ad had it just been the book, even if it’s not something I would read. I don’t read het romance either, but I wouldn’t stop het authors from advertising. SOMEBODY out there buys the books. I’m only the judge of what I like, not what constitutes a good book for everyone else out there.
BUT, because the author is a batshit crazy twit…no. That definitely matters. And I don’t buy that people selling advertising space shouldn’t be doing a cursory Google check at least on the people they’re selling to. It wouldn’t have taken but a few seconds to find all the CS wankery.
Christine Rimmer
August 14
8:04 pm
Depends. Completely. On what kind of mood I was in and, possibly, whether I needed the money. As a rule, I wouldn’t run an ad for a laxative, say, on my blog. Nothing against laxatives. They’re just…not that attractive. But I might take on a really good bowel cleanser in certain circumstances. I think for anyone who sells ads, well, they have the right to refuse service to or the business of anyone–and to accept same. So if I were running this imaginary blog, I would feel totally free to call it as I saw it at that particular moment in time with any potential ad.
sybil
August 14
8:25 pm
ding ding ding
“such creeps on line when responding to any type of criticism of their books or viewpoints they disagree with — Catherine Coulter, Katie MacAlister and Deborah Smith to name a few.”
and there in is the problem for me and where I go back and forth with doing ads on my blog (something I have thought of for about two or so years and keep going back to no not now)
Do you put a clause in your rules if you are an asshat online you can be denied? And where is that line? Is it only if they are an uberhugeasshat? Try and pass off incest as romance?
I read suspense. I read about serial killers. I read about child killers. I read thillers. I don’t approve of murder, no really, not even when the person really really pisses me off. 😉
So incest in book between consenting adults? Not something I would read (ALTHOUGH YES I like the flowers in the attic series and Marly’s Chance by Lora Leigh and am one of those stupid people who would say lora leigh doesn’t write incest ::shrug::)
As far as SB rep’ing romance, they are selling a book. Of course they are contacting media outlets promoting their blog and the genre. Should they think about the ads on their site while they are doing that, ‘I’ would think so but maybe they didn’t think that far ahead. Who knows – they haven’t answered. Maybe they will in a month. Maybe not.
To answer the question… I still can’t decide but need too. Amazon is paying out about half these days and doesn’t even cover postage to reviewers muchless contests and I think it is gearing toward going away altogether (BUT that is just a guess on my part). I don’t think I could do it, hell I couldn’t even book guest author days without knowing I would recommend the book. So can’t see how I could have ads up of books I wouldn’t stand behind as ‘good’.
Myra Willingham
August 14
8:27 pm
I don’t believe in censorship of any kind. There are some things my authors write that make me go ewwwwwww but I don’t yell at them because what they write isn’t my cup of tea. I may cringe but I don’t censor them nor try to foist my personal beliefs off on them. I would like to think of myself as a professional. As for running the ad: just think how much publicity this whole thing has generated. Think of all the page views of readers going over to see the infamous ad so they can rattle their sabers in solidarity. Contemplate all the furor this battle being waged has caused. Talk about a tempest in a teapot…………
Let it go. It isn’t worth discussing it ad nauseum. Most of us agree the author is a complete nutjob and that her writing sucks. Stop giving her all this fucking free publicity!
Mireya
August 14
9:53 pm
I am having an issue here. It pertains to the “censorship” deal. How would rejection of an ad be considered censorship. I just am not getting where that rationale for using the word “censorship” is coming from.
Myra Willingham
August 14
10:49 pm
Censorship is defined as: Deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances; the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a censor; denial of intellectual freedom to promote a certain work due to moral thought; Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
Myra Willingham
August 14
10:51 pm
FYI: http://library.findlaw.com/1997/Dec/1/131328.html
AztecLady
August 14
11:00 pm
For some reason whenever someone says, “I don’t want to talk about that here” or the equivalent, cries of censorship crop up like crazy.
And the point is, no one is suppressing Ms Stone’s crap, nor asking for it to be suppressed. No one is saying that she shouldn’t be allowed to write it or even to peddle it.
So yeah, not getting the censorship call either.
Ashley Ladd
August 14
11:15 pm
All this makes me almost glad I don’t run ads on my sight. I’d hope to one day. You’ve given me a lot of food for thought.
At this time, I don’t think I would accept such an ad based on the book’s content. If I didn’t like the author’s attitude or interaction with me, it would depend how bad I deemed it.
Michelle
August 14
11:26 pm
No I wouldn’t run the ad. The cries of censorship are a red herring. There is a difference between not promoting a book vs. book burning, etc.
Mireya
August 15
1:02 am
@Myra: I understand all that, I may not express myself as eloquently as most here, but I’ve worked in litigation for 21 years, though I am not an attorney (I may have to ask all this to my husband though, as he is an attorney). Anyway, I am digressing. The article talks about ad censorship, which in turn brings the question: How does that apply to the situation at bar. Is a blog then, considered a publication?
Myra Willingham
August 15
1:13 am
Yes, it is considered such. Anything that is published is a publication according to my old j-school prof.
Scott
August 15
1:33 am
A little late to chime in, but my answer to Karen’s original question is that I would not let the ad be placed. I would even go so far as not accepting an ad from someone who’s work I enjoy, but don’t agree with their opinions outside of their work. Example: Orson Scott Card. I loved his novel “Pastwatch”, and usually list it among my favorite all-time novels. However, he has very different opinions then I do about homosexuality, and I just couldn’t see letting someone with such a closed mind advertise on my site.
medumb
August 15
4:51 am
Aren’t you guys querying why SB didn’t censor the ad, and let it run on their site?
Isn’t the whole point?
I think I am more confused than normal.
Back to the dilemma, depends if I could be bothered researching every author who submits an ad? Unless I had a personal run in with author, the chances of me remembering are slim. If I had a blog, and advertising, if I vetted all material that I find offensive, there would probably not be that much left in many ways. So no.
Shiloh Walker
August 15
12:25 pm
I don’t really view it as censorship if a site decides against running an ad that promotes products/books/whatever that is unlikely to appeal to the majority of their readership/customers/whatever.
I don’t care about the ad. I don’t care about the author. If she wants to hope to pick up some readers to buy her misinformed ideas of romance, fine. Readers are smart enough to realize that just because somebody calls a book a romance doesn’t mean it is.
But if a biz decides not to run a promotion for an entity that really doesn’t jive with their customers/readers, I don’t view it as censorship-it’s smart biz thinking.
AztecLady
August 15
1:42 pm
If I understand Myra Willingham’s quote, censorship is the suppression of something and denial to promote it.
On the first charge: no one is calling for the suppression or deletion of CS’s stuff. (Aren’t we tired of the repetition yet?)
On the second charge: no one is calling for the SBs to take the add down. No one is calling for a campaign to make sure no CSs ads appear in any blog or other venue online, forever and ever. No one.
The question is whether someone else would or would not choose to accept CS’s money–shouldn’t the person in question have the freedom to choose the ads running on his/her site? How is that censorship?
Myra Willingham
August 15
2:45 pm
The site DIDN’T decide to censor the ad. The question was whether or not someone ELSE would or would not choose to do the ad. In choosing not to…if you have a site that accepts paid ads NOT if you have a site that doesn’t…then that is censorship. Should the person have the freedom to choose ads running on his/her site? If it’s just Jane Doe’s personal blog, yes, but if you accept money for ads, that’s a whole different matter.
West
August 15
4:27 pm
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel that-even if someone accepts paid ads- it’s still thier “personal blog”, and they should have the right to choose who to take money from. I don’t see how it becomes less “theirs” if they run ads.
JulieLeto
August 15
7:08 pm
If a privately owned business decides not to promote another privately owned business by disallowing their advertising, I don’t see that as censorship. It’s a business decision. There is no free speech in free enterprise.
My family runs a small business and I can tell you that if another company wanted to do business with us, but they had questionable ethics, morals, whatever, we wouldn’t do business with them–and we wouldn’t even have to say why. It’s our business, our choice.
I am a part of a group blog and we choose who we allow to guest blog there…just because someone asks to be on our blog doesn’t mean we have to let them. And we’re not even talking about $$ exchanging hands. We have a certain tone to our blog and are very careful that we and our guest bloggers keep to that tone. Are we censoring someone if they want to come post some controversial rant on our site–where we don’t allow rants? I don’t think so. It’s our choice–that person can go rant somewhere else. We’re just choosing not to give them a platform. (Not that this has ever happened, I’m just saying.)
itsallaboutbusinessdecisions
August 15
9:35 pm
I wouldn’t run the ad. A business/website/blog has to decide what sort of branding and image it chooses to present. Some have no pre-defined branding or image. Others quite a bit. Frankly, I am more than a little dismayed in the SBs business sense that they do not vet their ads (especially since they have the fugly clause) and will take money from anyone.
An entity has to protect its branding and image. Running ads that counter that (for example incest as romance) does more harm to the entity than it would to the person who put in the ad. Because now, whether they asked for it or not, the SBs are putting out a message that plagerism is wrong. Incest is okay. See, we even advertise it on our blog.
If an author thinks its in her best interest not to run ads/associate with batshit crazy authors, then she’s not censoring anything. She’s protecting her branding and her career.
I would have quietly invoked the “fugly” clause and not run the ad.
SamG
August 15
11:18 pm
I don’t have a blog, so don’t know what I’d do. I think I’d probably go with some sort of disclaimer by the ad, or an F or DNF review very close to the ad. That is probably too passive-aggressive, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the way I’d go. Which is why it is a good thing I don’t have a blog.
Sam…who would love to say I’d tell her to stick her filthy lucre up her rump…but her money is as good as anyone else’s…even is she isn’t (and I don’t know her, have only read about her on this site and would prefer not to meet her from what I have read)