After a lot of research and sitting at my computer for hours, this is the post I promised. Actually, I enjoyed looking into this and I think my point will be proven correct.
But first, I have quite a few people to thank. Part of my research was contacting over 40 blogs affiliated with mine via GOPBloggers.org. I ended up getting responses from almost half, and it provided me a good sample to work from as well as some quotable tidbits.
For those of you who didn’t get contacted by me and are reading this, I looked into blog advertising, in particular the "Ads by Goooogle" that reside on a lot of blogsites. What I did was track down affiliated bloggers that use this advertising tool and ask them three simple questions, as follows:
1. On a monthly basis, do you earn any revenue form Google ads?
2. How long have you carried these ads?
3. Are you aware that some of these advertisements may be for products you may not endorse or agree with?
I learned a lot about this portion of the blogging business from the replies I received. I’ll admit, I was pretty ignorant about how the blogging business worked (as far as a business. I know how to write.) I had idle thoughts that someday this could be a minor income producer but making money sounds like tough sledding. Luckily, it’s also fun for me because I just plain like getting my point of view out and the papers here won’t print my letters to the editor daily!
So some of the reason for questions #1 and #2 was curiosity, but also I needed some kind of baseline to start from and see if my assumptions were correct. I suspected people weren’t making a ton off their blog ads, but I was surprised it was so little.
Question #3 occurred to me as I was going through a lot of the blogs and seeing a plethora of anti-Bush items for sale. It occurred to me that, like happens when you use Google the search engine, the keywords in the blog trigger what items are advertised. This was borne out in a response sent to me by Barry at Palmetto Pundit:
"A good example (of triggering keywords) is that around the middle of June I had one post that dealt with a faulty washing machine. I was trying to write something funny...They posted washing machine service and parts ads for about two weeks afterward. It was completely absurd. I had been posting about politics for 3 months prior and one post about washing machines caused them to think I had a washing machine blog. Go figure!"
So what did I find out? That if we took all the money that was being made from Google ads in a month from my subjects, maybe after a year we can buy one share of Google. Or, in the words of J.E. Park at the JEP Report, "I would expect that crack addiction would probably be more profitable." Most of my subjects haven’t made the threshold for getting a check from Google, even if they’ve carried the ads for awhile (the average time was 6-12 months as participants.)
The other question, number 3, was more varied in its response. Some people took the view that having liberal ads wasn’t such a bad thing. As Timmer White of Righting America wrote: "...I try to maintain a venue that attracts political discourse from all sides (so) I don’t mind that some ads are not in keeping with my own conservatism...(I)t fits my blogging philosophy to include them, as I have also included links to some other blogs that I definitely do not agree with."
On the other hand, Dawn at WriteWingBlog commented, "I am aware that some of the ads (in her instance, pro-abortion) I may not endorse or agree with...I always immediately go into my account and put those ads I dislike into the filter."
As I said, I had a lot of responses, and in truth, it was pretty much as I figured. But the reason I titled this post, "For A Few Dollars More..." was because the pittance we receive is nothing compared to what Google makes. Anyone familiar with their $290 a share (after being under $100 in its IPO) stock price knows this. (On $3.40 earnings per share, that’s one hell of a P/E ratio! Waiting for that bubble to burst.) And bless their heart, they’re exploiting capitalism in all its glory, by having a product that they can sell.
So what do Google employees do with their newly created wealth? This is where the other part of my research comes in. Opensecrets.org (aka The Center for Responsive Politics) is one wonderful website. I’ll try not to make your eyes glaze over with numbers, but here goes:
There are 207 records of people listing their employer as "Google". Of these 207, a total of $296,694 was given. Here are some of the top recipients:
1. DNC Services $106,625
2. Sen. John Kerry (D- MA) $41,000
2. DCCC (House Democrats) $41,000
4. Various state/local Democrat parties $23,750
5. Various state/local Democrat candidates $14,150
6. Moveon.org $13,665
7. Various PAC’s $8,929
8. Americans Coming Together (PAC) $8,050
9. Emily’s List (PAC) $6,525
10. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D - CA 14) $6,000
11. Act Blue (PAC) $5,000
12. Citizen Soldier Fund (PAC) $5,000
13. Howard Dean $4,200
14. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D - MA 7) $4,000
15. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D- WA) $3,100
Green Party and independents got $450 as well.
Let me point out there were three brave souls at Google who donated to President Bush, for a total of $3,250, plus one donation (by a member of this trio) for $2,000 to Rep. Dennis Hastert. But a staggering 98.2% of donations went to Democrats - that’s approaching the AFSCME union’s partisan territory.
While I am aware that Google plays host to some of these fine blogsites and has services that they use (for example, many of my blogger subjects have Gmail addresses), I wonder if we as conservatives really want to play in what is likely unfriendly territory. I even looked up Yahoo! as a donator, and their small corporate donations were strictly divided 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. Another heavy advertiser, Amazon.com, had no recorded corporate donations.
Personally, I rarely use Google as a search engine, I prefer Yahoo’s partially because I already have a Yahoo Messenger account I use at times and their toolbar is on my screen. But in the back of my mind I was aware that their founder was quite the donor to liberal causes (borne out by the research.) It’s the same reason I would never insure myself through Progressive Insurance, since Peter Lewis is a huge liberal 527 donor.
Obviously, sometimes one has to make a deal with the devil, and in this case some of my fellow bloggers do. While Google allows you to filter out ads you don’t like, you can’t filter where their individual employees send their money; nor should we, it’s still a free country despite their best efforts.
As conservatives and bloggers who are at the forefront of this "new media" - or ones who just want to make their opinion heard, like me - isn’t it time we put our collective heads together and figure out a way to both make our blogs more profitable and support those who support our beliefs? In the near future, I’ll be looking for a website host (yes, I’m making the leap off Blogspot sometime soon), and I can guarantee you that despite their services, it won’t be hosted by Google. Not to be a shill for the company, but Amazon.com’s Associate program has some interest to me as a revenue supplier because I can select the items I advertise. It may be a further outlet for those so inclined to have money makers for their blog. As noted by Matt Lewis (Matt Lewis and the News) in his response, "A lot of people don’t like ads. Ironically, I put them up because it made my site (which is new) look more full and professional."
I know having a professional feel is one of my goals in blogging. Part of achieving that aim is maintaining a blog that is relatively serious and well-researched (but with its share of fun.)
As my tagline says, "I’m just a guy trying to push this country in the ‘right’ direction." To me, using Ads by Google pulls us the wrong way.
Postscript: there were some bloggers out there who also allowed me to quote them but they just didn’t happen to fit into today's post. So here’s the hat tips to Darnell at Hidden Nook, Adam at Government Cheese, Brian at Radio Equalizer, J. at Americans for Freedom, Aaron at Pardon My English, and the person at Slant Point whose name I didn’t get. Fine folks all!
