From Bob Hoffmanâs The Ad Contrarian newsletter of May 24: âtwo weeks ago a study by the ISBA and PcW that reported that half of every âprogrammaticâ ad dollar is scraped by adtech middlemenâ and âAccording to a paper written by Fiona Scott Morton, an economist at Yale University, Google pockets about 40Âą of every online ad dollar before it ever gets to a publisher. Not just search dollars, not just programmatic dollars, but all online ad dollars.â Just one more reason I refuse to sign these:
Iâm not part of the 90 per cent. And the bastards at Google are rich enough. Let them share it with illegal content mills as they are peas in a pod. Another solution for legitimate publishers is dearly needed.
At least there’s been some sort of work with the commissions agencies take in other media, and that’s typically at 15 per cent here. Google is taking the piss with its automated systems.
We know the US doesnât have the balls (or funding?) to take them on at this point, but how about other sovereign territories in which Google operates? Surely they have to comply with our laws, too?
Out of curiosity, why do people visit Autocade? We havenât had a big jump in visits with COVID-19 (contrary to some other motoring sites), as I imagine encyclopĂŠdias arenât as fun as, say, AROnline, where at least you can reminisce about the British motor industry that was, back in the day when Britain had a functioning government that seemed terrible at the time when no one could imagine how much worse it could get. Obviously we havenât had as many new models to record, but are they the reason people pop by? Or are the old models the reason? Or the coverage of the Chinese market, which few Anglophone sites seem to do? If you are an Autocade fan reading this, please feel free to let us know why in the comments.
One moan about Facebook. Go on.
Sometimes when I pop inâand that remains rarelyâand look at the Lucire fan page, Iâll spot an automated Tweet that has appeared courtesy of IFTTT. Itâs had, say, no views, or one view. I think, âSince there have been no real interactions with this bot entry, maybe I should delete it and feed it in manually, because surely Facebook would give something that has been entered directly on to its platform better organic reach than something that a bot has done?â
With that thought process, I delete it and enter the same thing in manually.
Except now, as has happened so many times before, the page preview is corruptedâFacebook adds letters to the end of the URL, corrupting it, so that the preview results in a 404. This is an old bug that goes back yearsâI spotted it when I used Facebook regularly, and that was before 2017. Itâs not every link but over the last few weeks there have been two. You then have to go and edit the text to ask people, âPlease donât click on the site preview because Facebook is incapable of providing the correct link.â Now youâre down some views because people think youâve linked a 404. Not everyoneâs going to read your explanation about Facebookâs incompetence. (Once again, this reminds me why some people say I encounter more bugs there than othersâI donât, but not everyone is observant.)
This series of events is entirely counterintuitive because it means that bot activity is prioritized over actual activity on Facebook. Bot activity is more accurate and links correctly. And so we come back to the old, old story I have told many times about Facebook and bots and how the platform is bot city. In 2014, I rang the alarm bells; and I was astonished that in 2019 Facebook claims it had to delete over 5,400 million bot accounts. You should have listened to me then, folksâunless, of course, bots are part of the growth strategy, and of course they are.
So, when feeding in links, remember this. Facebook: friendly to bots, not to humans. Itâs probably not a bad way to approach their site anyway.
Iâve looked at my May blogging stats going back a decade (left sidebar, for those on the desktop skin) and itâs always quieter. I blog less. I wonder why this is. The beginning of hibernation? The fact that less interesting stuffâs happening in late autumn as the seasons change?
Finally, a podcast (or is it a blogcast, since it’s on my blog?) where I’m not “reacting” to something that Olivia St Redfern has put on her Leisure Lounge series. Here are some musings about where we’re at, now we are at Level 3.
Some of my friends, especially my Natcoll students from 1999â2000, will tell you that I love doing impressions. They say Rory Bremner’s are shit hot and that mine are halfway there. It’s a regret that I haven’t been able to spring any of these on you. Don’t worry, I haven’t done any here. But one of these days âŠ
I know what youâre thinking. âDid he have six kids or only fiveâ. Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself.
My friend Richard MacManus wrote a great blog post in February on the passing of Clive James, and made this poignant observation: âBecause far from preserving our culture, the Web is at best forgetting it and at worst erasing it. As it turns out, a website is much more vulnerable than an Egyptian pyramid.â
The problem: search engines are biased to show us the latest stuff, so older items are being forgotten.
There are dead domains, of courseâeach time I pop by to our linksâ pages, I find Iâm deleting more than Iâm adding. I mean, who maintains linksâ pages these days, anyway? (Ours look mega-dated.) But the items we added in the 1990s and 2000s are vanishing and other than the Internet Archive, Richard notes its Wayback Machine is âincreasingly the only method of accessing past websites that have otherwise disappeared into the ether. Many old websites are now either 404 errors, or the domains have been snapped up by spammers searching for Google juice.â
His fear is that sites like Clive Jamesâs will be forgotten rather than preserved, and he has a point. As a collective, humanity seems to desire novelty: the newest car, the newest cellphone, and the newest news. Searching for a topic tends to bring up the newest references, since the modern web operates on the basis that history is bunk.
Thatâs a real shame as it means we donât get to understand our history as well as we should. Take this pandemic, for instance: are there lessons we could learn from MERS and SARS, or even the Great Plague of London in the 1660s? But a search is more likely to reveal stuff we already know or have recently come across in the media, like a sort of comfort blanket to assure us of our smartness. Itâs not just political views and personal biases that are getting bubbled, it seems human knowledge is, too.
Even Duck Duck Go, my preferred search engine, can be guilty of this, though a search I just made of the word pandemic shows it is better in providing relevance over novelty.
Showing results founded on their novelty actually makes the web less interesting because search engines fail to make it a place of discovery. If page after page reveals the latest, and the latest is often commodified news, then there is no point going to the second or third pages to find out more. Google takes great pride in detailing the date in the description, or â2 days agoâ or â1 day agoâ. But if search engines remained focused on relevance, then we may stumble on something we didnât know, and be better educated in the process.
Therefore, itâs possibly another area that Big Tech is getting wrong: itâs not just endangering democracy, but human intelligence. The biases I accused Google News and Facebook ofâviz.their preference for corporate mediaâbuild on the dumbing-down of the masses.
I may well be wrong: maybe people donât want to get smarter: Facebook tells us that folks just want a dopamine hit from approval, and maybe confirmation of our own limited knowledge gives us the same. âLook at how smart I am!â Or how about this collection?
Any expert will tell you that the best way to keep your traffic up is to generate more and more new content, and itâs easy to understand why: like a physical library, the old stuff is getting forgotten, buried, or evenâif they canât sell or give it awayâpulped.
Again, thereâs a massive opportunity here. A hypothetical new news aggregator can outdo Google News by spidering and rewarding independent media that break news, by giving them the best placementâas Google News used to do. That encourages independent media to do their job and opens the public up to new voices and viewpoints. And now a hypothetical new search engine could outdo Google by providing relevance over novelty, or at least getting the balance of the two right.
A 1950s German microcar (the Champion 400) is a nice change from the massive modern SUV
Itâs a cinch that Autocade will hit 19 million page views this week. At the time of writing, there are fewer than 15,000 views to go. The last millionth milestone was expected on December 26, but I believe I was ultimately a day out (i.e. December 27). Conservatively, Autocade will get to 19 million on April 9, which means we got this latest million in a shade over three months. I’ll update these details if things change. I wanted to mark it early since I have a busy week ahead (plus for a lot of the other milestones, I was late!).
Despite this fairly constant page view count, Autocadeâs Alexa ranking has plummeted like mad after a healthy rise over the last half of 2019. In all these years Iâm still not certain how itâs all calculated, and they do say the lower your ranking, the less accurate it gets. Therefore, as it falls, you know itâs also getting less accurate!
The site is on 4,142 entries.
March 2008: launch
April 2011: 1,000,000 (three years for first million) March 2012: 2,000,000 (11 months for second million)
May 2013: 3,000,000 (14 months for third million) January 2014: 4,000,000 (eight months for fourth million) September 2014: 5,000,000 (eight months for fifth million) May 2015: 6,000,000 (eight months for sixth million) October 2015: 7,000,000 (five months for seventh million) March 2016: 8,000,000 (five months for eighth million)
August 2016: 9,000,000 (five months for ninth million) February 2017: 10,000,000 (six months for 10th million) June 2017: 11,000,000 (four months for 11th million) January 2018: 12,000,000 (seven months for 12th million) May 2018: 13,000,000 (four months for 13th million) September 2018: 14,000,000 (four months for 14th million) February 2019: 15,000,000 (five months for 15th million) June 2019: 16,000,000 (four months for 16th million) October 2019: 17,000,000 (four months for 17th million) December 2019: 18,000,000 (just under three months for 18th million, from first week of October to December 27)
April 2020: 19,000,000 (just over three months for 19th million, from December 27 to April 9)
Itâs not a record increaseâthat was the 18th millionâbut itâs still reasonably healthy and shows that traffic is continuing on an upward curve overall, even if Alexa doesnât think so.
I am privy to some of the inner workings at Bauer Media through friends and colleagues, but I didnât expect them to shut up shop in New Zealand, effective April 2.
Depending on your politics, youâre in one of two camps.
TV3, itself part of a foreign company who has made serious cutbacks during the lockdown, said Bauer had approached the government and offered to sell the business to them at a rock-bottom price in the hope of saving the 200-plus jobs there. The government declined. I believe that’s the angle foreign-owned media are adopting here.
Both the PM and the minister responsible for media, Kris Faafoi, have said that Bauer never applied for the wage subsidy, and never approached the government to see if it could be classified as an essential service to keep operating. Indeed, in the words of the PM, âBauer contacted the minister and told him they werenât interested in subsidies.â Itâs murkier today as there is evidence that Bauer had, through the Magazine Publishersâ Association, lobbied for reclassification for it to be turned down, though the minister continues to say that it had never been raised with him and that Bauer had already committed to shutting up shop.
Outside of âwe said, they saidâ, my takes are, first, it was never likely that the government would want to be a magazine publisher. Various New Zealand governments have been pondering how to deal with state-owned media here, and there was little chance the latest inhabitants of the Beehive would add to this.
We also know that Bauer had shut titles over the years due to poor performance, and Faafoiâs original statement expressly states that the Hamburg-based multinational had been âfacing challenges around viability of their operations here in New Zealand.â
With these two facts in mind, the government would not have taken on the business to turn it around, especially while knowing the owner of Bauer Media (well, 85 per cent of it) has a personal worth of US$3,000 million and the company generated milliards in revenue per annum.
I also have to point to its own harsh decisions over the years in shutting titles. In 2018, Bauerâs own Australian CEO told Ad News: âThereâs a really interesting view that somehow we are here to provide a social service. The reality is weâre here to make money and if we canât make money out of our magazines, weâll sell them or weâll close them.
âWe have an obligation, whether thatâs a public company or private company, to make money for shareholders. If it doesnât make money, why would we do it?â
That, to me, sounds like the corporate position here as well, and no doubt Bauerâs bean counters will have crunched the numbers before yesterdayâs announcement.
Iâve had my own ideas how the stable could have evolved but itâs easy to talk about this with hindsight, so I wonât. Enough people are hurting. But Iâd have applied for whatever the government offered to see if I could keep things going for a little while longer. Even if the writing was on the wall, it would have been nice to see my colleagues have a lifeline. Get one more issue of each title out after June. Maybe Iâm just not as brutal. I mean, Iâve never defamed Rebel Wilson as Bauer’s Australian publications have. Maybe itâs different for a small independent.
If I may use a sporting analogy, Bauer hasnât let their players on to the field and kept them in the changing room, and more’s the pity.
One comment I received yesterday was that Bauer wouldnât have been in a position to pay its staff even with the government subsidy, with no advertising sales being generated. Iâm not so sure, with annual global revenues of over âŹ2,000 million. New Zealand was probably too unimportant to be saved by Bauer’s bosses in Hamburg. I guess weâll never know.
Autocade turns 12 today, as it’s now March 8 here in New Zealand. From zero models to 4,093 (the Hyundai Avante XD is the latest); and as I write this sentence, itâs netted 18,683,611 page views. Just four years ago this month, it had only managed eight million.
Just this week, I added two public notes of thanks to Carfolio, with whom weâve done a bit of an information swap, on the site. Admittedly that swap has been in our favour. The first fruits of that were four Toyota models. It shows that we motorheads have been able to find each other and work on a spirit of cooperation, to make the web more informative and useful.
Itâs a far cry from those early days when the site got its first few models; it took four months to get to 500. The timing wasn’t great, considering the Global Financial Crisis was beginning to happen around us, and more people were being sucked in to Facebook. As a hobby, I carried on, because it was a satisfying use of my time.
Iâll leave a stats’ breakdown when we get to 19 million views, and no doubt Iâll do another post when we get to 4,100 models.
Stuart Cowley, who shot the first Autocade video with me fronting it, has a few more up his sleeve that heâll edit in due course. Iâm open to seeing what the future will bring for the brand.
Having one independent web publication thatâs survived 22 years and counting, and another thatâs now 12, is perhaps quite rare these days.
Since I began writing this post, Autocade has gained another 73 page views.
Iâm grateful for all the support out thereâthank you for all your views, feedback, generosity, information, and your shared love of cars.
In the early days, banner advertising was pretty simple. By the turn of the century, we dealt with a couple of firms, Burst Media and Gorilla Nation, and we had a few buy direct. Money was good.
This is the pattern today if we choose to say yes to anyone representing an ad network.
I get an email, with, âHey, weâve got some great fill rates and CPMs!â
I quiz them, tell them that in the past weâve been disappointed. Basically, because each ad network has a payment threshold (and in Burstâs case they deduct money as a fee for paying you money), the more ad networks we serve in each ad spotâs rotation, the longer it takes to reach each networkâs threshold. And some networks donât even serve ads that we can see.
They say that that wonât happen, so I do the paperwork and we put the codes in.
Invariably we either see crap ads (gambling and click-bait, or worse: pop-ups, pop-unders, interstitials and entire page takeovers for either) or we see no ads, at least none thatâll pay.
Because we give people a chance we leave the codes there for a while, and that delays the payment thresholds just as predicted.
At the end of the day, itâs âThanks, but no thanks,â because no one really seems to honour their commitments when it comes to online advertising. With certain companies having monopoly or duopoly powers in this market, itâs led to depressed prices and a very high threshold for any new playersâand thatâs a bad thing for publishers. What a pity their home country lacks the bollocks to do something about it.
Every now and then they will feed through an advertisement from Google because of a contractual arrangement they have, and the ad isn’t clickableâbecause I guess no one at Google has figured out that that’s important. (Remember, this is the same company that didn’t know what significant American building is located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC on Google Earth, and the way to deal with whistleblowers is allegedly to call the cops on them.)
We deal with one Scots firm and one Israeli firm these days, in the hope that not having American ad networks so dependent on, or affected by, a company with questionable ethics might help things just a little.
The Dell P2418D: just like the one I’m looking at as I type, but there are way more wires coming out of the thing in real life
Other than at the beginning of my personal computing experience (the early 1980s, and thatâs not counting video game consoles), Iâve tended to have a screen thatâs better than average. When 640 Ă 360 was the norm, I had 1,024 Ă 768. My first modern laptop in 2001 (a Dell Inspiron) had 1,600 pixels across, even back then. It was only in recent years that I thought my LG 23-inch LCD, which did full HD, was good enough, and I didnât bother going to the extremes of 4K. However, with Lucire and the night-time hours I often work, and because of a scratch to the LG that a friend accidentally made when we moved, I thought it was time for an upgrade.
Blue light is a problem, and I needed something that would be easier on the eyes. At the same time, an upgrade on res would be nice.
But there was one catch: I wasnât prepared to go to 27 inches. I didnât see the point. I can only focus on so much at any given time, and I didnât want a monitor so large that Iâd have to move my neck heaps to see every corner. On our work Imacs I was pretty happy to work at 24 inches, so I decided Iâd do the same for Windows, going up a single inch from where I was. IPS would be fine. I didnât need a curved screen because my livelihood is in flat media. Finally, I don’t need multiple screens as I don’t need to keep an eye on, say, emails coming in on one screen, or do coding where I need one screen for the code and the other for the preview.
Oddly, there arenât many monitor manufacturers doing QHD at 24 inches. There was a very narrow range I could choose from in New Zealand, with neither BenQ nor Viewsonic doing that size and resolution here. Asus has a beautifully designed unit but I was put off by the backlight bleed stories of four years ago that were put down to poor quality control, and it seemed to be a case of hit and miss; while Dellâs P2418D seemed just right, its negative reviews on Amazon and the Dell website largely penned by one person writing multiple entries. I placed the order late one night, and Ascent dispatched it the following day. If not for the courier missing me by an hour, Iâd be writing this review a day earlier.
I realize weâre only hours in to my ownership so there are no strange pixels or noticeable backlight bleed, and assembly and installation were a breeze, other than Windows 10 blocking the installation of one driver (necessitating the use of an elevated command prompt to open the driver executable).
With my new PC that was made roughly this time last year, I had a Radeon RX580 video card with two Displayport ports, so it was an easy farewell to DVI-D. The new cables came with the monitor. A lot of you will already be used to monitors acting as USB hubs with a downstream cable plugged in, though that is new to me. It does mean, finally, I have a more comfortable location for one of my external HDs, and I may yet relocate the cable to a third external round the back of my PC.
Windows 10 automatically sized everything to 125 per cent magnification, with a few programs needing that to be overridden (right-click on the program icon, then head into âCompatibilityâ, then âChange high DPI settingsâ).
Dellâs Display Manager lets you in to brightness, contrast and other settings without fiddling with the hardware buttons, which is very handy. I did have to dial down the brightness and contrast considerably: Iâm currently at 45 and 64 per cent respectively.
And I know itâs just me and not the devices but everything feels faster. Surely I can’t be noticing the 1 ms difference between Displayport and DVI-D?
I can foresee this being far more productive than my old set-up, and Ascentâs price made it particularly tempting. I can already see more of the in- and outbox detail in Eudora. Plantin looks great here in WordPerfect (which I often prep my long-form writing in), and if type looks good, Iâm more inclined to keep working with it. (It never looked quite right at a lower res, though it renders beautifully on my laptop.)
I feel a little more âlate 2010sâ than I did before, with the monitor now up to the tech of the desktop PC. Sure, itâs not as razor-sharp as an Imac with a Retina 4K display, but I was happy enough in work situations with the QHD of a 15-inch Macbook Pro, and having that slightly larger feels right. Besides, a 4K monitor at this sizeâand Dell makes oneâwas outside what I had budgeted, and Iâm not sure if I want to run some of my programsâthe ones that donât use Windowsâ magnificationâon a 4K screen. Some of their menus would become particularly tiny, and that wonât be great for productivity.
Maybe when 4K becomes the norm Iâll reconsider, as the programs will have advanced by then, though at this rate Iâll still be using Eudora 7.1, as I do today.