Apparently tiny font size means more Adsense revenues. Sad... and how the heck this promotes "greater Reader participation" is beyond me, unless by that they mean squinting to read the blog's content and shading one's eyes to avoid the glare of the ads. [via]
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
I already disregard sites where over 50% of screen real estate is taken up by ads. I'll simply disregard those that have tiny fonts as well.
I struggle with finding the best strategies to discover nuggets of enlightenment amongst the millions of posts. Being able to easily dismiss some, relieves the burden somewhat.
Posted by: Marius Coomans | June 23, 2005 11:37 AM
I use adblocking user styles, and I'm horrified when surfing without it. Is it any wonder real world users develop so much banner blindness [1] and navigation blindness [2]?
I still let the father of web 2.0's ;-) rss ads though because I value the content.
[1]: http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v02/i01/Pagendarm/
[2]: http://www.guuui.com/issues/01_05.php
Posted by: Terrence Wood | June 23, 2005 2:44 PM
OUCH! you dismiss me without bothering to learn anything about me and such disdain from a "Technician" for a "Marketer's" choices ... and this humiliation from a "Kiwi" neighbour!
Squinting is not recommended, but changing the "text size" on the VIEW tab of IE will certainly improve your reader enjoyment, and 3.7 page views per visitor are not "sad" web stats.in my books.
Both our web statistics, and more importantly our target audience of "newcomers to website marketing" enjoy the "clean lines" of the Marketing Defined blog and the real "Marketing" and "SEO" lessons within.
I make no apologies for the fact that I do have a family to feed and thus need remuneration for the long hours it takes to research and present "real" content to my subscribers .. hence the need to earn an income from Adsense ads.
We treasure the testimonials attesting to the fact that many newcomers to the Internet have attained high search engine rankings from the quality material we have educated them with ... for free I might add.
Marketing Defined - Marketing and Publishing.
PS. Our commentary is also easily digestible. I find it nauseating, when bloggers adopt the "pompus" grammatically perfect, Oxford-style written word.
Posted by: Roseanne van Langenberg | June 23, 2005 11:20 PM
I support Roseanne's approach, and it's clear that she has a readership that is not turned off by her blog design at all. Roseanne was very clear about how and why she used a "tiny" font, and in fact that post is how I discovered her and this interesting marketing idea.
The beauty of blogs is that we all can develop our own readership, and we as readers can find someone who communicates to our needs and interests (not everyone's need/interest).
The Eyetrack III study clearly shows that if you want readers to read and not scan, a smaller font size encourages reading:
http://www.poynterextra.org/eyetrack2004/main.htm
I will say that I find small type hard to read anymore, but as Roseanne points out, I can change the settings in IE (don't know about Firefox or Opera), to make the font appear bigger if I choose.
You know, as side note, it's interesting that the 2 recent simple, but highly effective ideas in generating more money thru Ads I've found were created by women....
Roxanne
Posted by: Roxanne | June 24, 2005 8:08 AM
Roseanne, I'm sorry if I came across as a pompous "technician"... let me try and explain a little why I find the "tiny font" approach offensive.
You said: "Squinting is not recommended, but changing the "text size" on the VIEW tab of IE will certainly improve your reader enjoyment, and 3.7 page views per visitor are not "sad" web stats.in my books."
Firstly, why do you want to make readers increase the text size in their browser? Not only is that an extra effort for the user, but it's generally not something users do (I don't, for instance). I'm sure your content is great, so why make it hard to read?!
Secondly my "sad" comment wasn't about your web stats - it was my reaction to anyone who devalues their content by using "tiny fonts". And it does devalue the content, in my books, if it's hard to read it!
Your comment: "I make no apologies for the fact that I do have a family to feed and thus need remuneration for the long hours it takes to research and present "real" content to my subscribers .. hence the need to earn an income from Adsense ads."
Hey, I totally support this. I too put a lot of work into my content and I try to optimize my ads too. But I think making your content practically illegible, while your ads have big colourful fonts in contrast, is overstepping the line. Sorry if that sounds pompous.
Roxanne, re your comment: "The beauty of blogs is that we all can develop our own readership, and we as readers can find someone who communicates to our needs and interests (not everyone's need/interest)."
That's very true. If your readers put up with these tiny fonts, then fine. I just don't know why you want to make it so hard for your readers. e.g. Roseanne, I couldn't read the text under your "About Me" - so I didn't even know you are an Australian!
Finally Roxanne's comment: "You know, as side note, it's interesting that the 2 recent simple, but highly effective ideas in generating more money thru Ads I've found were created by women...."
It's great you and Roseanne are innovating. It's just that I don't happen to agree with this "tiny fonts" approach. I think it insults your readers and puts too many barriers up for new readers. But that's just my opinion and I've certainly stirred up some hornets nests recently with my opinions on money-making schemes. :-)
Posted by: Richard MacManus | June 24, 2005 9:03 AM
Richard
Thank you for your views and taking the time to explain your motives for the above Post.
Our subscribers are highly valued, and they were all polled and "loved" the clean uncluttered look of our Marketing blog. There was a resounding 99% acceptance for the smaller fonts, and this was taking into account all views, in spite of 74% usage of the IE browser.
As Roxanne so wisely says "The beauty of blogs is that we all can develop our own readership, and we as readers can find someone who communicates to our needs and interests (not everyone's need/interest)."
As Darren Rowse of Problogger Posted recently .. blog stats. show that a disappointing 2 seconds is spent viewing a Blog .. and I simply had to improve on that .. made no sense offering quality SEO and Marketing help if there were no readers.
Well the changes seemed to twig it .. the 3.7 page views per reader is always climbing, and we have a loyal subscriber base.
Enough said .. it was a subscriber of yours, that had me really annoyed, here is his mindless comment left on my Blog, underneath the Post you have written about:
"Why don't you try white text on a white background, I hear it really improves CTR" - that to me was insulting. I apologise to my readers, for the harsh comments he received from me ... but he more than asked for it.
Wishing you well in all you do Richard.
Roseanne
PS. To answer one of your subscriber's comments about struggling to find quality content - he might try the magical power of RSS (your expertise I believe) or Technorati to locate Posts centred around the keywords he is looking for.
Posted by: Roseanne van Langenberg | June 25, 2005 7:36 PM
Thanks for your reply Roseanne. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this issue, but I'm glad we had a chance to discuss the pros and cons of it here.
ps I enjoyed your description of me over on your blog: "some @$%# with a Scottish sounding surname". Heh. I'm actually from Irish heritage though ;-)
No hard feelings ay?
Posted by: Richard MacManus | June 26, 2005 11:48 AM