LooseSuits

Arrington is an exception to the rule. People tend to look at him as an example or a goal to achieve without realizing that he is a unique circumstance.

1) He is very niched.
2) He is very focused.
3) It's all about making contacts.

If you look at his offerings (which started off for fun) he blogs, met some people, then expanded to conferences and parties. Now he is THE person to go to and THE party/conference to attend to break into that space.

So yeah, companies will write off 10K a month to get the opportunity to network and get those invites. It's a bigger picture than exposure via advertising.

I really don't get it myself. The conclusion I've come to is that I basically just spend too much time on the Web and have subconsciously taught myself to ignore anything that even resembles an ad. I just don't see them.

For many people, though, hopping on the web is still a unique experience. They'll take everything on a page into consideration and click if there is even the slightest interest. I think that's why some sites are magnets for ad revenue, but what the heck do I know :)

Tyme hit it on the nail. Like it or not, Arrington is the "household name" most associate with web-based technology. Arrington has become the go to person, the one everybody seeks out, for that niche.

You have an opportunity to become that "go to" person everyone seeks out as well, you just need to find (and advertise) in the right niche.

Wonder what that could be.

We've talked about this before...go with what you know, bro.

But out of that morass, an elite of professionally produced blogs has risen thanks to their quality of writing, originality of thought and usefulness of information. An unknown number of those have quickly become bona fide businesses.

Techcrunch, quality writing! Pull the other one it's got Venture Capitalists on it!

A lot of this is incestuous back scratching. Techcrunch reports on startups, startups advertise on Techcrunch because they want VC funding, VC folks read TC loking for startups, other people who want startups and VC funding read TC to see how they can copy the idea, they all see if the money will last long enough so they can be bought by Google or Yahoo or MSNBC. Actual web users sign up for startups and then never go back.

The actual usefulness or quality of any of it is never discussed.

This reminds me a lot of the movie business. There are many that will tell you they know what makes a successful film, in money terms, but the truth is "they" actually have no idea. They just p*ss into the wind hoping it doesn't blow back.

I like what Scriv's pointed out when he said that 'there are so many that they get lost.' To coders and longtime denizens of the web our eyes blot out what we don't want to see - what we're trained not to see. An example being the adsense ads just directly under his post (my eyes just flicked over 'em).

It's strange, but ads from The Deck just seem to catch my attention. Go check Kottke, or A List Apart. They're something you don't see everyday, and they work. I've clicked on quite a few of them.

They only allow one ad per page.

If I was an advertiser I'd probably go with them, not the overhyped commercial blogs.

That's why you guys aren't getting it...the advertisements are the key, it's the connections they are trying to make. They know people don't see the ads or block them.

The simple fact that you advertise on a site puts your company in the same club as the other advertisers. This may give the perception your company is seeking to those who actually see your ad through the clutter.

Actual click through rates and conversion rates may be secondary in some cases. Personally, I'd like to see my ads pull some traffic that actually converts to something worth my investment.

It's all in the numbers. The more unique visitors you have the better you can sell the ads. And the correlation is not linear, but exponential. If you're on the top, you can practically charge many times more than the second in the list. It's all about perception. Advertisers are willing to pay for playing with the very best in their specific category.

The advertising on TC is great for TC. It's not so good for the advertisers.

See, here's how it often works: TechCrunch gets a LOT of pageviews per day. So many that, as iraszl said, they're exponentially ahead of everyone else.

Advertisers pay to be on the site because they're afraid not to. Then their competitors see them there and do the same. It snowballs.

I have clients spending a fortune on sites like TheKnot with no measured results: Not in direct sales, and not in trended improvements. Even the most sophisticated modeling shows no return. But they can't stop. They're addicted.

So I guess the logic is that there isn't any...?

This discussion reminded me of a quote about advertising in general.

Half of the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know what half.

I not really sure how true this is today. I would say that part of the "irrational behavior" of your clients, wrttnwrd, may be driven by a belief that you can't quantify an ad's impact by simple trending or statistics. Perhaps that seems irrational in the internet age where we have much better access to much more accurate numbers, but it seems reasonable based on the old paradigm (from the quotation).

I wonder if Techmeme would be a better ad spend. I suspect the audience that reads Techmeme is similar to the audience that reads TechCrunch. I don't notice the ads on TechCrunch (particularly when reading posts via NetVibes). However, I do notice the ads (sponsored posts) on Techmeme and have actually clicked through to read them. The difference is that the ads on Techmeme are content.

Reminds me a bit of search advertising vs contextual advertising. With search advertising, the ads are search results. CTRs are high. With contextual advertising, it's more about branding and the CTRs are much lower. Each has its place. I think buying ads on TechCrunch is for branding while Techmeme would be for, well, actual results in the form of clickthroughs.