Sellout Post-Rationalizing

The other day I got an email from a social marketing agency asking if I’d be open to some advertising here at the JLP. My mind quickly raced through the cost benefit analysis:

Benefits: cash.
Costs: reader annoyance and irritation.
Analysis: proceed recklessly.

The way I looked at it, this website is annoying and irritating by its very nature. Why shouldn’t I profit? Over 6+ years and 1,100-some posts, it is estimated that I’ve devoted 4 million hours to this blog. Frankly, it’s about time somebody ante up.

The specifics of the particular ad they wanted to run were a bit odd. They wanted me to add a link and two lines of text to one of my book review posts (those tends to get a lot of hits from Google searches). The text itself doesn’t make any sense – the post now starts with a few lines of confusing nonsense, then delves into my review for Collapse (UPDATE: a year later, I’ve removed the ad, per my agreement with them).

Whatever. They paid me decent money to foul up an old post. Why would I not do this? If the price was right, I’d let them embed a snuff film.

So don’t be suprised if you happen to drop by the JLP at some date in the future and come across an inexplicable link to an obnoxious site situated awkwardly in my post. When that happens, you can lean back, unbutton your short, and smile to yourself knowing that I’m off laughing my way to the ATM so I can blow the money on marshmallows or some other bit of nonsense that will exasperate my wife.

This post has been brought to you by Newport Cigarettes.
Newport pleasure!

This entry was posted in Meh. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Sellout Post-Rationalizing

  1. NORML says:

    Hey, dude… can we talk business?

  2. tim hopps says:

    My band, back in the 80’s, was for a brief period sponsored by Budweiser. They paid for our band posters in exchange for adding their logo to them. I felt really cool about that. Still do, if I have to be honest. Although these days if a sponsor hits us up, it’s likely to be Geritol or some damn thing.

  3. peter says:

    You guys would have been a lot cooler if you were sponsored by Stroh’s.

  4. tim hopps says:

    Yeah… and Blatz wasn’t interested either…

  5. kevin s. says:

    This is worse than the time the Rock was sponsored by Vagisil. The band had to do The Happy Song twice.

  6. Jordan says:

    Hey I always wondered about ads on your blog. It would be better if they could do them on the side, so it doesn’t actually look like a part of your post, but hey, it’s cool you’re getting paid. You’ve certainly got enough hits for it.

    I wonder if other companies can monitor your hits as easily as you… How do they know you get lots of hits? Maybe they can see. I’m not sure how that all works.

  7. Peter says:

    I have no idea, because this person seemed to have a better sense of my reader demographics that I do (though I confess I don’t really keep very close track of that sort of thing).

  8. john says:

    I was going to make a snide comment on how you failed to pluralize “shorts” in your essay, and left it as “short”, but I’ve never understood the plurality of pants.

  9. Peter says:

    I actually meant to write “unbutton your shirt”, but unbuttoning one’s shorts is way more graphic and unsettling.

  10. Thom says:

    I think this whole selling out would bother me more if you have accepted sponsorship for a less reputable product. Like Blu-Rays.

    This comment has been brought to you by the Blu-ray Disc Association, the group of companies dedicated to developing and promoting the Blu-ray Disc format.

  11. john says:

    I meant shirt, too. In no way would I ever encourage the use of graphic and/or unsettling imagery. No sir.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>