{"id":4679,"date":"2004-01-27T20:01:06","date_gmt":"2004-01-28T00:01:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/01\/27\/weblog-ads-seem-too-tacky-for"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:29","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:29","slug":"weblog-ads-seem-too-tacky-for-most-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/01\/27\/weblog-ads-seem-too-tacky-for-most-lawyers\/","title":{"rendered":"Weblog Ads Seem Too Tacky for Most Lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\"deleteKey . . .<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
Ethics aside, aesthetics and economics appear to doom any widespread use of advertising by weblogging lawyers — at least if those commenting at this site are representative of their webLAWg colleagues <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
When <\/FONT>Instapundit<\/FONT><\/A> pointed today to <\/FONT>Matt Welch<\/FONT><\/A>‘s sales pitch for <\/FONT>BlogAds<\/A>, it <\/FONT>reminded me to wrap up our own <\/FONT><\/FONT>e&h <\/EM>inquiry<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A> into the use of content-targetted ads<\/STRONG> on lawyer websites.  Welch says there’s good money to be made allowing BlogAds on a weblog and he wonders why anyone would turn down the gelt.  A proponent<\/A> of Google’s AdSense content-targetted ads had similarly wondered why webloggers weren’t cashing in on the “free money” generated by such ads.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Well, the lawyer weblog editors who responded to our questions seem to have reached a consensus:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Content-targetted ads are simply<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n