answered question
0
Votes
Votes
9
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
What do you think of Adjix--super annoying or brilliant?
answers (8)
Any innovation in online advertising is (somewhat) brilliant. Specifically, Adjix is doing something very interesting.
Adjix hasn't been around for very long. I don't think that they've paid any of their affiliates yet. So like many contenders in this arena, it's possible that they will implode before too long.
On one hand, I think that wrapping websites in iFrame ads is on the dark side of the grey line in online advertising. They're profiting from the work of others without permission or revshare.
On the other hand, they're using a simple iFrame that is easily broken out of and their ads are nothing more than simple text links that don't distract from the content.
The "dirty little secret" of many url redirection services is how they expire their links after a certain amount of time and then sell the traffic. At least Adjix is being up front about the model that they have implemented.
If Adjix was doing any sort of flash overlay or using a technology to display their ads that was not easily disabled, I would say that what they are doing is wrong. However, they're showing a bit of innovation and if nothing else, they should be given the opportunity to see if their model works.
What I'm nervous about is when the larger url redirection sites and ad networks find out about this. They'll quickly exploit this process until people start to complain.
I wouldn't be surprised if AdBright (and similar) execs were in meetings right now talking about how they would like to launch floating flash ads from iFrames beyond the resolution margins of sites in their network.
Adjix hasn't been around for very long. I don't think that they've paid any of their affiliates yet. So like many contenders in this arena, it's possible that they will implode before too long.
On one hand, I think that wrapping websites in iFrame ads is on the dark side of the grey line in online advertising. They're profiting from the work of others without permission or revshare.
On the other hand, they're using a simple iFrame that is easily broken out of and their ads are nothing more than simple text links that don't distract from the content.
The "dirty little secret" of many url redirection services is how they expire their links after a certain amount of time and then sell the traffic. At least Adjix is being up front about the model that they have implemented.
If Adjix was doing any sort of flash overlay or using a technology to display their ads that was not easily disabled, I would say that what they are doing is wrong. However, they're showing a bit of innovation and if nothing else, they should be given the opportunity to see if their model works.
What I'm nervous about is when the larger url redirection sites and ad networks find out about this. They'll quickly exploit this process until people start to complain.
I wouldn't be surprised if AdBright (and similar) execs were in meetings right now talking about how they would like to launch floating flash ads from iFrames beyond the resolution margins of sites in their network.
I'd never heard of it before, so I just checked it out. It seems like a good idea for people to make money. However, I could see that getting really irritating, really fast.
Adjix's key feature lies in its Adjix2Twitter bookmarklet which gives Twitter users the ability to embed ads inside of Twitter tweets. Adjix shares ad revenues with its users (called Linkers).
Ideal businesses for this feature would be news outlets such as newspapers, radio stations, etc. Here's a perfect example of an Adjix2Twitter embed ad used by @BreakingNewsOn:
http://twitter.com/BreakingNewsOn/statuses/1298466754
Advertisers set their own price they want to pay for an Adjix2Twitter embed ad. Ads run as CPM based on the number of followers that a Twitter user has. For example, an ad paying out $1 CPM would payout $0.50 to a Twitter user, with 500 followers, when embedding that ad inside their tweet. Twitter users see the ad's contents and payout before they tweet it, giving them an opportunity to replace the ad with another one or choose to tweet without any ad at all.
Adjix2Twitter embed ad demo:
http://adjix.com/ddew
Adjix2Twitter embed ad details:
http://adjix.com/ddgx
Adjix also allows ads to be attached to shortened links.
Adjix collects detailed link click data for each link (date/time clicked, IP address, referrer, etc, regardless if the link contains an ad or not).
Adjix is also unique in that it allows anyone to replace the adjix.com domain name, in the link, with their own domain name to increase a company's brand.
Ideal businesses for this feature would be news outlets such as newspapers, radio stations, etc. Here's a perfect example of an Adjix2Twitter embed ad used by @BreakingNewsOn:
http://twitter.com/BreakingNewsOn/statuses/1298466754
Advertisers set their own price they want to pay for an Adjix2Twitter embed ad. Ads run as CPM based on the number of followers that a Twitter user has. For example, an ad paying out $1 CPM would payout $0.50 to a Twitter user, with 500 followers, when embedding that ad inside their tweet. Twitter users see the ad's contents and payout before they tweet it, giving them an opportunity to replace the ad with another one or choose to tweet without any ad at all.
Adjix2Twitter embed ad demo:
http://adjix.com/ddew
Adjix2Twitter embed ad details:
http://adjix.com/ddgx
Adjix also allows ads to be attached to shortened links.
Adjix collects detailed link click data for each link (date/time clicked, IP address, referrer, etc, regardless if the link contains an ad or not).
Adjix is also unique in that it allows anyone to replace the adjix.com domain name, in the link, with their own domain name to increase a company's brand.
Joe, you've got an interesting revenue model. The way that you're spinning CPM to your advertisers and CPC to Twitter users is interesting and good thinking.
I still have a bad taste in my mouth from your model. I don't think that it's right (option or not) to wrap the content of others and profit from it. However, like I said in my answer online ads need to improve and advertising on Twitter is a particularly difficult nut to crack.
Good for you for trying it out. I'll be following (but not using) your work!
I still have a bad taste in my mouth from your model. I don't think that it's right (option or not) to wrap the content of others and profit from it. However, like I said in my answer online ads need to improve and advertising on Twitter is a particularly difficult nut to crack.
Good for you for trying it out. I'll be following (but not using) your work!
Rob, here's the flip side of the coin.
California wildfires were headed into my part of town. I e-mailed the editor of the local newspaper an evacuation checklist. At the top of the list was a hyperlink to the PDF of the list in case someone needed to pass along the list verbally. The PDF was on my own server.
The editor loved the checklist and put it up on their website - completely surrounded by ads. So, they're making money off of my content, which received a lot of traffic.
If a person is powerful enough to send a lot of traffic your way, Adjix gives them one way to benefit from this.
Of course, people should not use Adjix in conjunction with sites whose TOS forbid it (I guess that's like telling people not to upload copyrighted material to YouTube).
Regardless, we do offer people some clarification:
http://AdjixSucks.com
California wildfires were headed into my part of town. I e-mailed the editor of the local newspaper an evacuation checklist. At the top of the list was a hyperlink to the PDF of the list in case someone needed to pass along the list verbally. The PDF was on my own server.
The editor loved the checklist and put it up on their website - completely surrounded by ads. So, they're making money off of my content, which received a lot of traffic.
If a person is powerful enough to send a lot of traffic your way, Adjix gives them one way to benefit from this.
Of course, people should not use Adjix in conjunction with sites whose TOS forbid it (I guess that's like telling people not to upload copyrighted material to YouTube).
Regardless, we do offer people some clarification:
http://AdjixSucks.com
I'm glad that you created the adjix sucks site and that you've braced for the negativity.
This is going to launch a debate, but:
I think me using Adjix is just as ethical as me using Adblock+.
I use Adblock+ because I know that I'm never going to actually click on ads anyway. The ads don't affect me, so I turn them off.
Meanwhile, I use Adjix because I know that, if people didn't want the ads, they'd turn them off or use Adblock+, so fair's fair.
(Adblock+ is available at http://adjix.com/76st )
(See wut I did thar?)
I think me using Adjix is just as ethical as me using Adblock+.
I use Adblock+ because I know that I'm never going to actually click on ads anyway. The ads don't affect me, so I turn them off.
Meanwhile, I use Adjix because I know that, if people didn't want the ads, they'd turn them off or use Adblock+, so fair's fair.
(Adblock+ is available at http://adjix.com/76st )
(See wut I did thar?)
I think that Adjix is super brilliant and that it is a wonderful link shrinking service. I really like their one click "remove ad" feature.
source(s):
Personal usage.
Personal usage.
As we're all surely aware, time, and storage and bandwidth costs money so someone somewhere has to pay for it in the end. I've always found online ads MUCH less annoying and intrusive than network TV ads, which ruin a show by distracting you with non-contextual advertising every 7-8 minutes (and often the same ads re-run over and over during the show too).
source(s):
My own thoughts
My own thoughts
I was thinking the exact same thing! No option, on TV, to eject an ad. ;^D
"CPM based on the number of followers that a Twitter user has. For example, an ad paying out $1 CPM would payout $0.50 to a Twitter user, with 500 followers,"
Scoble is gonna be happy...
I think this way of thinking is strange, all my followers dont read all my tweets every time of a day (even in recession, some of my followers still have a work or activities)
So you need to put a ratio, and this ratio cant be the same for me, Scoble, Jason, a brand, a Mister Smith,...
I'm perplexed
Scoble is gonna be happy...
I think this way of thinking is strange, all my followers dont read all my tweets every time of a day (even in recession, some of my followers still have a work or activities)
So you need to put a ratio, and this ratio cant be the same for me, Scoble, Jason, a brand, a Mister Smith,...
I'm perplexed
It's not much different than any other CPM ad model where you know that there are users who don't see the ad whether it's the web, TV, radio, etc.
A newspaper is a good analogy. Ads are priced based on the newspaper's circulation, even though you know that not every reader sees every ad.
A newspaper is a good analogy. Ads are priced based on the newspaper's circulation, even though you know that not every reader sees every ad.
I have seen users using Adjix here on Mahalo, I truly believe it does a disservice to our users and our community. Every time I am forced to click on one of those links, I feel like I am being scammed. If you want to link me to a website please give me a link to that website, don't make me click through an advertisement, its insulting.
Its not something I haven't seen before, it's been called hijacking in the past.
Why are our users using adjix even after Mahalo is already offering them money on every question? It feels like a slap in the face, it boils my blood everytime and I vote down and against anybody who uses it here.
but that's just my humble opinion.
Its not something I haven't seen before, it's been called hijacking in the past.
Why are our users using adjix even after Mahalo is already offering them money on every question? It feels like a slap in the face, it boils my blood everytime and I vote down and against anybody who uses it here.
but that's just my humble opinion.
I think you have a point. It feels over the top to intercept users while they are surfing the web like this. I understand the need to make money, but this service really kills one of the biggest powers of the hyper link: it's ability to tell you where you're going before you get there!
Many Adjix users simply use Adjix without including ads. As a matter of fact, that's the default setting.
Not using an ad still gives you the ability to track detailed link click data. Plus, you can use your own domain name in place of adjix.com for branding purposes.
Not using an ad still gives you the ability to track detailed link click data. Plus, you can use your own domain name in place of adjix.com for branding purposes.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
Thanks for your thoughts and insights. Sometimes we receive feedback about people not liking the fact that they can't see the URL of the original website, so we point out the "Remove ad" link which allows the ad to be "ejected" showing the underlying content.
Many people use Adjix without the ads ("No Ad" option). But, we still track detailed link click data. Plus, you can replace adjix.com with your own domain name for branding purposes.
Lately, our biggest focus has been on our new Adjix2Twitter embed ad feature which allows people to embed an ad inside a Twitter tweet. Adjix users share ad revenue when they use Adjix and they are quickly finding that our Adjix2Twitter embed ads payout much better than the ads attached to shortened URLs.
Adjix2Twitter embed ad demo:
http://adjix.com/ddew
Adjix2Twitter embed ad details:
http://adjix.com/ddgx
Cheers,
Joe Moreno
President
Adjix
IN this case AdJix provides no value in their iframe and seems to take away value from the person who owns the content.
However, neither do iframes from sites such as About.com. They only serve to draw people back after they have consumed the content that they wanted to see.
Still, online advertising is currently undergoing a revolution. Ad profits are down and major players are either cutting back their marketing budgets or restricting them only to campaigns that are converting well. It will take a lot of ingenuity to ensure that online advertising continues to be effective and if nothing else, Adjix is pushing the envelope a bit.
As mentioned, I think that what they're doing is on the wrong side of the fence. "Off Button" or not, content is being wrapped and profited from. However, we need to continue to form, refine and test new methods of online advertising.
Please take a look at the Adjix2Twitter embed ads which give people the ability to run ads inside tweets. We see this being ideal for news organizations on Twitter.
Cheers,
Joe Moreno
Interesting in a spammy sort of way.
I hope that you're ready for some negativity. While I can see two sides of the fence and understand that we need to constantly invent new types of ads in order to maintain a free and profitable Internet, others will certainly see this as "spammy" and maybe to a certain degree even theft.
If anyone is interested in these Twitter inline ads, check out the demo video Adjix created: http://vimeo.com/3449904
A newspaper is a good use case of embed ads. They typically tweet out a headline, with a link to the full text of the article (usually about 70 characters total). Now, newspapers can also include an ad in their tweet.
Obviously, putting an embed ad in every tweet that you send to your friends would not be smart.