It's still in beta version, so there are limitations. One is that they do not have many sponsors at this point, so many of the ads link back to the DoGood homepage. Another is that not every ad is replaced. Still, it's refreshing to see reminders to do good rather than hooks to propagate consumerism.
I'm sure that if this ever catches on, big internet advertisers such as Google are going to go after the company with guns blazing for replacing paid content. Unitl then, I'll enjoy the respite.
6 comments:
I don't think Google will complain. Ad blockers have been around for a while. Google actually lists adblocker extensions for Google Chrome in it's gallery
https://chrome.google.com/extensions
True, but on closer reading,m this is not actually an ad-blocker. It re-routes revenue to the organizations pictured in the replacement ads. Check out their note to publishers.
I can't figure out how they generate revenue, though, and they keep 50% of what they collect. Still, I'm willing to support a business that generates social value.
Oh, I get it. Ads are purchased by socially responsible companies (fair trade, etc.).
I still dig it.
Now I'm curious. They're Note to Publisher says they don't block ads, that you'd still get CPM (which is Cost Per Impression).
If they are allowing the ad code to go through, but blocking the ad from showing, that is a bit shady.
The fact that they only donate 50% of their profit is a bit shady too. They stand to make a good bit of money if this catches on. Seems like 'green washing' if you ask me.
Gonna install the plugin and take it for a spin though.
I'm not so sure I would consider this to be green washing. Sure, they stand to make killer profits if this catches on. And there's the cynic in me that asks why I should voluntarily install the plug-in so that someone else can profit.
However, they're not just playing lip service to social responsibility. Their sponsors really seem to be companies that really are committed to social responsibility. And even though they stand to make a lot of money, 50% profit donation is not incidental. I do not begrudge someone compensation for selling a good idea or doing good work. I do object to profit by exploitation and indifference, which is how our consumer-driven economy is run.
This may be an interesting discussion topic for your blog, Ariah. To get started thinking about the nuances and controversies of social entrepreneurship, you should listen to the conversation on Speaking of Faith between Krista Tippett and ethos water co-founder and GOOD Magazine CEO Jonathan Greenblatt.
I'll take a listen to the podcast you mentioned.
Definitely might be a topic worthy of a blog post.
Here's my thought. Hundreds of programmers create plugins (including ad-blocking ones) and give them away all the time (this is mostly just a side note).
The reason I call it green-washing, which is probably not the appropriate term, is they are simply using the "green" appeal to promote their product. I don't know, I'm just not impressed.
An ambiguous "profit" is kind of confusing too. Are they paying themselves for their hours managing the plugin and then counting the rest "profit"?
Sorry, that was short and maybe a confusing argument. I can write more later.
Post a Comment