{"id":5135,"date":"2004-11-20T12:14:32","date_gmt":"2004-11-20T16:14:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/11\/20\/do-ads-subtract-big-ones-sure"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:13","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:13","slug":"do-ads-subtract-big-ones-sure-do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/11\/20\/do-ads-subtract-big-ones-sure-do\/","title":{"rendered":"do ads subtract? big ones sure do!"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

\n

Denise Howell got it right: <\/FONT>“Oy”<\/FONT><\/A> is her response to the pumped-up ads that Law.com<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
has required for entry into its new Weblog <\/FONT>Network<\/FONT><\/A>.  [The <\/FONT>eight weblogs<\/FONT><\/A> are all top-<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
notch and I hope their authors will resist any urge for self-censoring to avoid displeasing <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
their <\/FONT>corporate sponsor.  They all <\/FONT>insist<\/FONT><\/A> that this new arrangement <\/FONT>won’t<\/FONT><\/A> change <\/FONT>them<\/FONT><\/A>.]<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
It’s a little ironic that one of the new Networkians Commented <\/FONT>here<\/FONT><\/A> last year that <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“I don’t like the idea of law bloggers posting ads at their site. I don’t <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
know <\/FONT>whether it’s ethical or not, but it just looks cheap.” <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
(see <\/FONT>the OJR<\/EM> <\/FONT>article<\/FONT><\/A> “Will Microads Save Online Content? The next big <\/FONT><\/FONT>thing could be quite small,” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
written by Mathew Honan,  praising inobtrusive text ads and panning banner ads.  Despite our<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
initial visual confusion, Honan, is <\/FONT>not <\/EM><\/FONT>Matt Homann, proprietor <\/FONT>of the Law.com Network weblog <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the [non]billable hour<\/FONT><\/A>).<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
\"big  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
I hope weblog readers will urge Lisa Stone of law.com’s Legal Blog Watch<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT>to<\/FONT>  <\/FONT><\/FONT>lobby <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on behalf of her Networkians to have the required ads greatly reduced in <\/FONT>size.  Such <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
e-billboards are <\/FONT>>tacky<\/FONT><\/A> and unnecessary — and may prove to turn off a lot <\/FONT><\/FONT>of visitors <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(and ex-visitors).  The silly flipping rolodex ad that is featured on many <\/FONT>other law.com <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pages today is even more annoying than EDDix<\/FONT><\/A>‘ infamous <\/FONT>“confounded scrolling <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ticker thingy<\/FONT><\/A>.”<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n