"Ireland Keep Your Taxes Low: Vote "NO" " Ad

Bob the Builder

I found the photo:

This is what your advertising pays for!
http://www.nevfarrell.com/airbusDA.jpg
Stop this now! Vote Atari Jaguar in the upcoming referendum!

DeVore

No the money goes towards my ever burgeoning hookers bill. This isnt going to blow itself you know!!


Roundtower2, the problem there is that you dont want to see ads from the people you dont like. But then everyone doesnt like someone so no matter who advertises with us, someone has an issue with them. We've been walking that line ever since we put Eircom ads over the IrelandOffline forum. (Initially they were horrified but once it transpired that there was no impact on their discussions and when I explained that Eircom was effectively paying to maintain the area they were using to criticise it, they relaxed and it never arose again as an issue).

Its a lot simpler (and sustainable!) to simply throw the doors wide and make it clear that they get that rectangular space for their money. And nothing else.


To be absolutely honest, by the way, we have never had an approach by an advertiser to remove or modify a single post. We *have* had advertisers NOT advertise with us quoting lack of control over the content over which their ad would appear but if thats their problem, well... Boards isnt really where they should be advertising now is it!

DeV.

Bob the Builder

DeVore wrote: »

No the money goes towards my ever burgeoning hookers bill. This isnt going to blow itself you know!!

So now you're telling us that you're paying for all the hookers, all by yourself? I dooon't believe it!

To be absolutely honest, by the way, we have never had an approach by an advertiser to remove or modify a single post. We *have* had advertisers NOT advertise with us quoting lack of control over the content over which their ad would appear but if thats their problem, well... Boards isnt really where they should be advertising now is it!

I always thought it wasn't about the content, but rather the target audience which you were reaching?

I remember the eircom issue, and it did upset a lot of people, but what people didn't realise that ultimately, eircom were paying money to keep a website running that had users complaining about them. Either way, advertiser reached the target audience and got publicity at the same time.

Every time you discuss an advertisement and/or criticise it, you are publicising it, therefore making the ad's purpose more successful.

Mastercard get more publicity from their banned commercials than they do from their approved commercials, because the ads are more unique and get more publicity.

Agent Smith

Just curious, whats the rates For banner Ads?
If you dont want to say publicly, then if you wish, pm.
if you dont want to say at all, well, ok then

Bob the Builder

Agent Smith wrote: »

Just curious, whats the rates For banner Ads?
If you dont want to say publicly, then if you wish, pm.
if you dont want to say at all, well, ok then

I believe I read somewhere on this thread that the advertising is measured on a PerClick basis, and regarding that ad specifically, it is 0.3cent per user click.

AckwelFoley

I dont trust the no campaign and their motives.

But in the interest in fairness i presume all adverts are accepted, others than ones promoting porn or illegal activity.

DeVore

The rate varies with many things. We've often done hugely knocked down ads for boards regulars who we knew didnt have big budgets. Other times we have charged a premium because they were a big corporates.
We charge per showing of the ads, except for the Google ads which are paid for on a per-click-through basis. Google are the only ones who are big enough to make us accept that....

DeV.

Winters

DeVore wrote: »

No the money goes towards my ever burgeoning hookers bill. This isnt going to blow itself you know!!

Cult is expensive yet worth every penny ^_^


My problem with the ad would not be that it is a No vote but what it states would be misleading to the actual treaty. We arn't going to have sudden secret Brussels stealth taxes thrown out left and right etc. Then again, half the lampposts around seem to have blatant lies on them but they wont get removed for a few weeks yet

5starpool

I agree with RT2 that most of the people/groups advocating a No vote are the type of people that make me want to punch them, so I naturally dislike seeing any ads promoting them. Maybe it is just me, but I don't like the idea of boards advertising something endorsed by the loonies of libertas, shinners, and over the top socialist types. Obviously money is money, but some of the stuff that is coming out of the no campaign is just blatant scaremongering of the worst kind imo.

If there is one thing boards has taught me, it is to dislike shills etc. I know paid shills = advertising, etc etc, but some accountancy firm telling people that taxes will go up unless we vote no is just another form of shilling imo (albeit sanctioned).

zilog_jones

I just saw a Libertas ad here a few minutes ago - I raged.

Simplicity

At least the no camp had the brains to advertise on Boards.

Not seeing any yes stuff?

DeVore

I'm really curious now... Of the people who hate the No ad, what would you do? I'm not having a go, I'm really interested.

Would you really advocate denying the No vote ad and allowing a Yes vote ad? Dont you think that that is quite seriously dangerous in a "public" place like this?

I dislike many of the people behind the No vote, and frankly they are the biggest argument for voting Yes in my book but I wouldnt deny them the same opportunities as the other side!

I would love to see a day when Jackie Healy Rae (grrrrrrrrrr!) and some other political muppet were going at each other over the Kerry forum.... I think the next 5 years are going to see the dam break and boards will be accepted as valid, indeed required venue for canvassing. Which means we can engage with them in threads and they will have to answer....

DeV.

Sparks

I would love to see a day when Jackie Healy Rae (grrrrrrrrrr!) and some other political muppet were going at each other over the Kerry forum

Speaking as a Kerryman, please please please don't ever let that happen. My mind can only take so much stress before it tries to leave through my ears...

Mr.Nice Guy

I think it was more dodgy for Mary Coughlan to be interviewed on Saturday Night with Miriam, not to mention the constant RTE interviews with Cowen and co begging for a Yes vote to please the EU overlords.

Good on Boards.ie I say.

Winters

DeVore wrote: »

I'm really curious now... Of the people who hate the No ad, what would you do? I'm not having a go, I'm really interested.

Would you really advocate denying the No vote ad and allowing a Yes vote ad? Dont you think that that is quite seriously dangerous in a "public" place like this?

I myself have no problem with either side having adverts on the site, more money for boards

What I would have a problem with is the ad being misleading/incorrect, this would go for both the No and Yes sides to the Lisbon treaty and would apply to other advertisements too.

MadsL

Dont mind the No ad per se....just have a big problem with 'Lies-bertas'

(refuel your rendition flight, Sir?)

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Bob the Builder

Don't mind ads from either side being on Boards.ie.
If Boards.ie Ltd was to deny a YES ad, and accept a NO ad, or vice versa, then Boards.ie would immediatley be supporting the opposite side, which I don't think is a good thing.

Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour, and the P-Diddly's all have their own mediums for voting(eg. tv, newspapers), thats grand. The NO side have paid for an ad here, so why should the admins stop them?

Out of interest, what the fúck does Jackie Healy Rae have a seat in the Dáil for, he talks shíte and is nothing but a piss take out of irish politics. If I saw him posting on a forum here, I would either pull my eyeballs out, or die on the floor laughing that he knows how to use a computer. How would you verify who each person is though?

I could see them moving onto Youtube as well, like the presidential candidates in america did. Also, the old saying "whatever you write on the internet, stays there 4ever!" also applis to Boards.ie. What normal politician would ever write anything on Boards? It would mean they would have to be accountable for their promises, which no politician ever wants. Could you blame them either? It would mean they would actually have to do their job for once, and fulfill their promises.

The woman's job is in the kitchen, but Mary Coughlan's job is out on a farm on the windy hills of Donegal. She's a blow-in in the job she's in now.

Mr.Nice Guy

Summer Glau wrote: »

What I would have a problem with is the ad being misleading/incorrect, this would go for both the No and Yes sides to the Lisbon treaty and would apply to other advertisements too.

So we should ban all ads deemed to be misleading or incorrect? There wouldn't be any ads then.

Not that I'd mind such a world...

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

Would you really advocate denying the No vote ad and allowing a Yes vote ad? Dont you think that that is quite seriously dangerous in a "public" place like this?

I've no problem with you accepting Ad's from people from the No side.
I do have a problem with ad's that are pumping blatant lies.

See'ing a libertas ad for instance when viewing a thread and posting on the yes side of the debate in the EU is bad form.
Especially when the ad is misleading.
For example threads there have nailed the angle long ago that we lose a commissioner for a 5 yr spell before getting one back (The loss of one was agreed in the Nice treaty).
Yet Libertas are paying Boards to have a lie like that pop up in a forum meant to discusss the issues?
Thats just one of their lies.

I think that you should only be accepting these ad's on the basis that they cannot be misleading.
In other words the ad's should be independently vetted.
Thats regardless of what they are politically promoting.

Sparks

Feck's sake.
BOTH sides lie (you can call them simplifications or factual inaccuracies or just plain "advertising", but they're lies in the end). Who cares what some ad says. I have not seen one ad on this entire campaign from either side that gave me any information I could use.
Bottom line, it's an ad. It generates money for boards.ie, and being an ad, it cannot be counted on as an information source, so so long as it doesn't break obscenity laws or that kind of thing, take their money.

Vetting an ad for "the truth" is precisely the same as calling boards.ie readers too stupid to know how to vote correctly...







...which isn't to say that's incorrect, but that's a thread for the Politics forum

5starpool

I was going to write another reply, but I think black briar (formerly tristame I presume by the avatar?) sums it up well for me.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

Vetting an ad for "the truth" is precisely the same as calling boards.ie readers too stupid to know how to vote correctly...
...which isn't to say that's incorrect, but that's a thread for the Politics forum

You don't have to be stupid to be ill informed you know.

As regards vetting political ad's for the truth-you've got to remember again that this is a community.
Is it right that the aparatus of that community should give paid for pride of place to mis information?

In my book-No it is not.

Sparks

Feck's sake, that's one step shy of saying we have to protect the right to free speech in here.
Who're you to be the arbiter of what information is right and wrong? To what degree must something be correct before it's anointed as "the truth"?

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

Who're you to be the arbiter of what information is right and wrong? To what degree must something be correct before it's anointed as "the truth"?

In fairness, the ad mentioned in the OP is about as true as: "Sparks is a Cork man, Vote No!"

Sparks

And L.Casei Immunitas yoghurt drinks are a con job because the stomach acid kills off the "friendly bacteria" before it gets out of your stomach and into the intestinal tract. Doesn't stop RTE taking their money. Shouldn't stop us either. If someone's dumb enough to vote without looking into what they're voting on, a boards.ie advertising truth policy won't make them smarter. And no, it's not about being well or badly informed, it's about being fundamentally dumb.

You're just píssed that it doesn't mention God Sparks isn't that it

I didn't know RTÉ or broadcasting media are allowed carry political adverts?

Have sides of this campaign been advertising there?

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

And L.Casei Immunitas yoghurt drinks are a con job because the stomach acid kills off the "friendly bacteria" before it gets out of your stomach and into the intestinal tract. Doesn't stop RTE taking their money. Shouldn't stop us either. If someone's dumb enough to vote without looking into what they're voting on, a boards.ie advertising truth policy won't make them smarter. And no, it's not about being well or badly informed, it's about being fundamentally dumb.

Perhaps I'm just annoyed because a lack of a ban on that ****e exposes me to the possibility that my time spent reading and understanding the treaty will be negated by some gullible fool who believes the propaganda.

Sparks

Don't duck the point BB.
RTE's advertising policy abides by the relevant laws but beyond that, it's all about the money. Boards.ie has no obligation to go further than that with it's advertising. Bills need paying. Take the money. Let idiots who'd vote according to a website ad vote that way. If the Yes side have a problem with that, let them pay more money for more ad time and thus more votes.

Sparks

IRLConor wrote: »

Perhaps I'm just annoyed because a lack of a ban on that ****e exposes me to the possibility that my time spent reading and understanding the treaty will be negated by some gullible fool who believes the propaganda.

The annoyance never ceases
Eventually you wind up simply believing that being able to suffer fools gladly is a sign of being a fool yourself.
The upside is that if you don't care much about what the fools do, it leaves you free to do the best thing available to do.
Until you reach that point, well, go listen to Wierd Al's "I'll sue ya"