There’s nothing wrong with trying to make a buck.

nope. No problem at all with trying to make a buck. You’ve got an incredible site here that has become quite popular quite fast… I think that you’ll find that most people are so calloused to the ads anymore that they will hardly notice them at all. Just make sure they are unobtusive…

Michael you should benefit from your growing subscriber base through Ads- we value your work and support it- and we love your Meetups! Or forget the ads- when we’re ready to launch if a Tech Crunch mention gets us flipped we’ll take care of ya ;-).

Solid move, Michael. Blog on!

.. you know how many people use firefox to access this site.. you know how many of us are actually going to see the ads.. i know i won’t so i don’t care

Monetise away.

Great site, and I have no problems with you putting ads on the site. I’d even click on them from time to time knowing that you’ll be earning some well deserved revenue!

Dave Winer says:
It’s not about nickel-and-dime ads. Really. I swear. …. Don’t go down that path without taking a look at where the real money will be made.

How does Dave’s statement fit with FM’s business model. I agree with Dave as well. With gas at 2.87 gallon you will be able to fill up once a week with the current ad model.

Love techcrunch keep on jammin.

Good on ya.

Yep, no problem, as long as it does not disrupt too much the reading experience.

BTW, a DISCREET “Sponsored Startups” section might be good too ;). I can imagine many startups being interested to get some realstate on your site. But, I am sure this has already been thought through. It could create some conflict of interest, if not managed correctly.

No problem at all with earning some cash from all of your hard and excellent work!

No problem ! Ads can be useful sometimes for readers.
You do a great job here.

Jim Rutherford: If he is going to use PPC, we call this click fraud.

Michael: I agree with many of the other comments - relevant & reccomended ’sponsored sites’ would be welcome. A site reccomneded by you is most likely worth checking out.

-Mandy

Go ahead with the Ads, I know you have already thought about several things ( ie still keeping a fair view of new companies as you do now ).

If you are able to keep the fair and non corporate view of things as you do now then go go ahead.

Great Blog by the way

I’ll click on the ads and try to patronize ‘em just to supprt this great site. But as far as “sponsored sites” go…if you don’t know it by now, a lot of people have begun to place a LOT of trust in your judgement, myself included. If you decide to make such a section, it would be an excellent idea to do anything you can to nurture that trust and not break it

There is lots of money to be made with advertising wihtout sacrificin editorial integrity. A frend of mine makes over $1000 per DAY on AdSense alone, and he hasn’t done anything sleazy. Dave talks like someone who’s never actually tried (or needed to) make a buck off the web. Does he advocate the same model for, say, the NPR programs he likes?

BTW, my friend is profiled at https://www.google.com/adsense/success. I’ll let you guess which one he is.

Great job! You should totally make some money off the great work that you’re doing.

Was wondering how the heck you were supporting yourself, Michael. More power to ya!

While I agree that trying to offset costs by incorporating ads into the site is totally a great idea, I wonder about joining FMP. Why not go into the ad revenue biz for yourself (ala AdSense for example?) How does joining FMP allow you to crosspolinate and associate with these other blogs? How were you prevented from doing this prior to joining FMP? You have a great blog that is all about Web2.0 but it seems to me that joining FMP or a company like it is all about the traditional Ad model and does not leverage the social connectedness that Web2.0 enables.

Regardless, I like your blog a lot and will continue reading it even with ads.

Best of luck.

It’s your site, it’s great work, keep it up… and stop worrying about somebody that doesn’t like advertising. Ads are only distracting to those that want to be distracted.

I agree about sponsored startups. But I feel you should be selective about who you decide to feature.

I believe the ayes have it. Go for it mate.

As long as it’s not obtrusive and well-placed on the website, I have no problem with ads. I actually think it’s a good idea to make some money to run it and some pocket money for yourself.

Keep on ballin’

ps. filled out survey in full

I think that your blog is one of the best ever made. Go for it with content targeted ads.

I am not concerned about having ads on this site. I would say go right ahead! I hope that it will at least cover the costs of the assistant that you are thinking of hiring.

I think there is nothing wrong in placing the ads on your website but what more important is, the placing of the ads. And I am dead sure that it will be 100% perfect i.e. not too many ads and everything placed in smarter way.

Regards,
Deep

Yes, Mike, *please* get paid for your work here.

I rather talk to you offline about this. Ads are not something you just slap on a site. Funding sites through text ads is so web 1.0 and probably why we don’t hear of Excite, Alta Vista, iWon anymore.

There are other and better ways to generate revenue than peddle text ads. I believe Phil Kaplan of Fcompany made revenue funding his site through having a subscription-based premium rumor list. Maybe techcrunch can create a premium list to profile certain startups to the VC and others that would pay for the info.

Honestly, I’m sorry to see you do this. You’re a leader, and a shining example to those who may have ideas like yourself that their opinion matters.

There are a lot of reasons I don’t like what FM publishing is doing, and we can talk about some of those things, if you like, at the conference we’re going to later today. But it boils down to this, Silicon Valley has this idea that it defines the world, and that leads it to do things that bring technology to the world with a very bad attitude, one that is not conducive to freedom.

Battelle and FM Publishing are basically a house organ for the Silicon Valley view of things. You didn’t say anywhere in your announcement that you can disagree with them, or what control or influence they may gain by being part of your economic picture. And you need to more than say that, it has to be the FIRST THING you want to reassure your readers about. And now I want to know what TechCrunch is now that you’re directly making money from it. What happens when you criticize one of your advertisers, or one of FM’s investors? Will you look into their businesses with the same vigor you look into others. And don’t be surprised by these questions, because a lot of ad-sponsored writers, both in print and on blogs, won’t look into the businesses of their sponsors, with the lame excuse that they wouldn’t have any objectivity.

That your explanation talked about you but not us tells me that you’re not ready for this Mike. Before this move our guess that what you wrote was merely what occured to you was pretty likely accurate (although even then you might not have been saying things to offend potential advertisers). But it gets much more complicated to read you. And of course the advertisers will expect to influence what you write. You ought to check that out too, and see what happens when you tell them to fuck off (not just verbally but in your public writing).

Finally, I’m sorry I linked so much to TechCrunch in the past, and helped you build the flow and the opportunity to sell that flow to advertisers. I really regret doing it. And I would be less of a person if I didn’t say that publicly.

I’m still your friend, and I don’t use that word lightly, but I am also disappointed.

I appreciate how efficiently you cover the bleeding edge of web 2.0 and wouldn’t mind ads at all if they keep you going.

Hello,
Great site! I really like the “no marketing fluff” style.
I appreciate your editorial choices. This is what makes your site so unique. I would appreciate if there will be a clear separation between what you think is important and the ads.
B good,
E.T.

No problem with some ads, especially if they’re not over the top and they’re text-based.

Hmmm, going to the dark side. I really enjoyed reading this and now you are selling out like McCartney and Clapton. I was going to say I was done reading this but after reading Dave “Whiners” response I’m not. I don’t think you have been critical towards any company ever so I don’t know how this could taint your blog. I hope you make enough money to pay for that swanky house in Atherton.

“The main reason I’ve done this is to associate with these other blogs and cross pollinate ideas.”

I’m curious about this. What do you mean cross-pollinate ideas? Are you expecting to get tip-offs from some of these other blogs about new companies?

Whatever it takes to keep you going I’m all for it! I like the clean layout of the site and a few non-obtrusive ads won’t change things. You do a great job and I know how much time it takes. Good luck!

I didn’t expect such a move, honestly.

If that’s for making money, you could probably make much more managing it independently. So I don’t like it.

If that’s an experiment, I don’t like it neither.

I would like it if you would make a creative effort to figure out a way to create a revenue from techcrunch advertising without losing credibility (and ultimately losing techcrunch’s current and potential position).

That would require an innovative and creative formula, a brand new forma-mentis, or something else.

Dave Winer:
your comment is interesting. The part “And of course the advertisers will expect to influence what you write.” is the most interesting one to me:

Is it set in stone that they should *be allowed* to?

Would you be personally able to sell a finite amount of ad space (not getting sponsorized) and still be as objective as now?

TechCrunch is one of the most exciting blogs out there and something I look forward to reading every day. You’re a hub in the web 2.0 world where people like me, all the way from Western Australia, can feel a little closer to the action.

Do what you need to do to keep TechCrunch going.

Following Dave Winer’s comments, you seem to be putting yourself between a rock and a hard place, Mike. Either you pay out of your own pocket for a highly successful site which must be costing you a pretty penny for hosting, or you get ads and then stand accused of selling out.

This middle ground is what journalists are trained to traverse, they do it every day. Mike, I am guessing you never went to a J-school, but you’re intelligent enough to have absorbed the principles by which journalists work their craft.

You said: “I’d like to get an understanding of what types of advertisements you may actually find useful.” Perhaps to fend off such accusations of bias, you could ask FM to ban ads on your sites from companies you have mentioned, or are going to mention. It would certainly seem weird to have TechCrunch brought to you by Google, or any of the GEMAYA giants. I don’t think anyone would have problems about ads for Wired, film festivals or a shirt maker, as on Boing Boing.

I listened to Dave Winer’s Morning Coffee Notes podcast of 11/19/05 on placing Ads on TechCrunch. I have much respect for Dave’s work and intellect. But I disagree with his argument against advertising.

Personally I don’t plan to advertise on my site (which doesn’t get many subscriptions and is a videoblogging site) and would like to look at offering other services and products in the future for financing. But I may take ads at some point if they directly relate to the subject of my site.

The basic problem I have with saying one can’t objectively and substantially review and report with ads, is that it defines intellect as subservient to patronage. I don’t think this is born out by evidence. For example, the person who blew up the tobacco company defense was an employee, Jeffrey Wigand ( http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/ ) and it is insiders that whistle blow and reveal company activities. So it is not a de facto result that patronage determines discernment.

The other aspect of Dave’s argument is that the readership will discount any review of a advertisers product. Again, it is the reader’s responsibility to use their intelligence to determine the validity of reviews. If the reader has a de facto discount of journalism based on there being advertising, they are being intellectually lazy. One should not be bound to readership prejudice in their reporting.

Don’t do it Mike. I don’t appreciate anything that is advert-supported. In fact the way I see it, advertising is not the right revenue model for the web anyway (ok, maybe I’m a bit of kook). And since I like to think of TechCrunch as forward-looking, I’d prefer it if you stayed away from old-school, cheesy techniques (and yes I think FM, AdSense, whatever are old-school and cheesy).

I was wondering why you don’t even have the Google AdSense bar. You should totally do it. Nothing wrong with letting a few ads support your excellent blog.

I think you would do great with ads. I don´t knoe why people make a big deal out of this, putting ads doesn´t mean that the quality of the content will decrease, actually, it could help you to grow. Good luck with it.

For those who have been following: I have posted two articles-stories-complaints on the indymedias recently about my experiences with the supposed anti-money laundering corporation, or ‘AML’ ,Mantas Inc., recently, whose links you will find at the bottom of this post.They, like their founders SRA International, are conveniently located in the Beltway to be near their clients at Big Brother Inc., no doubt. Immediately below is a promotion from the SRA International website itself bragging about ‘picking’ the probably criminal and certainly corrupt brain of an NSA ‘bigwig’. SRA International and Mantas Inc.brag about detecting the ‘bad guys’ through use of ‘behavior’ software.

And yet who is watching their behaviors ? Rumor is that Barry Landrew, Landew, CEO of SRA International that has obtained monopolistic contracts with various government agencies,(including our fraud watchers at the GAO!!),probably due to the fact of the CIA’s In-Q-Tel investments in SRA International,is himself addicted to gambling like that Republican pillar of ‘virtues’, Bill Bennett.(Do google search ,’sra international Barry Landew gambling’)