The Rumpus and Advertising
There’s an incredible piece in the Times today about The Awl, a Gawker type blog that is much smarter than Gawker. There are times when The Awl makes judgements and doesn’t even try to get at something resembling the truth, even when it would be extremely easy for them to do so.
But it’s a good publication, for what it is. Better than most. And I have to admit being taken by what they’re making in advertising. They have only slightly more traffic than we do but we’re making a magnitude less money. The only reason we can live off what we make on The Rumpus is because of the book club.
But would advertising kill The Rumpus? If it wasn’t on the home page but only a banner on the top of the article pages?
October 25th, 2010 at 10:26 am
nope.
October 25th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Put a banner up and give all of the money to the cartoonists!
October 25th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Yes, we must do something for the cartoonists!
October 25th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Isn’t the combination of commercializing the Rumpus with fighting the commercialization of Dolores Park just a little too ironic? For the record, I’m in favor both of websites making money and of civilizedly drinking delicious coffee in the park.
(Can you tell us again how, exactly, the Awl’s summary doesn’t “resemble the truth”? “Residents of San Francisco have succeeded in keeping a small, locally-run, organic microroastery’s coffee cart from opening in Dolores Park!”)
October 26th, 2010 at 11:03 am
DS,
OK, I’ll try, under the good faith assumption that you really want to know.
Fighting a coffee trailer opening in your local park is complicated. First, it’s a good local company. Second, the permits were already issued and the businesses that applied for them didn’t do anything wrong. Third, there’s already people selling things in the park illegally. Fourth, there are parks all over the world with legal concession stands. Fifth, some studies show that concessions can revitalize an underused park (this is an absurd argument because Dolores Park is not underused by any stretch). Sixth, the parks and rec need money. Seventh, it was possible to know that the permits were issued at least six months earlier.
So there are these things, and then there’s the privatization of public space. The fact that the park has been there over a hundred years without concessions and survived much more severe economic downturns. There are no rules in place that would stop the trailers from multiplying, and since parks and recs always needs money why not make it four trailers, or six? This is worth thinking about, there is nothing stopping that. The most common argument from people in favor of the trailer is that “people are already selling things in the park.” You could imagine how quickly that would be replaced with, “there are already commercial trailers operating legally in the park.” The process was much muddier and hidden than proponents choose to realize and the public was not notified, though the information was out there. I don’t think there was anybody intentionally doing things wrong, it’s simply that Parks and Rec should have looked to agencies with more experience.
If Parks and Rec are going to get deep into the business of opening new shops and restaurants then their process should mimic the planning department. That would mean putting up a fairly large sign (about the size of a coffee trailer) exactly where the business would be located (right on top of the playground) for twenty days prior to a permit being issued, notifying the public of a hearing. Then people come to the meeting and, if there’s not much public outcry, the permit goes through.
This might seem unnecessary, but the Planning Department does this for a reason. If you did this you wouldn’t have an outcry from people you disagree with after the permit has been permitted. Most people, if they feel they have been given a chance to speak, will accept the outcome of the planning department’s decisions. The reason you have processes like this in place is exactly to avoid the confrontation that we’ve seen around the Dolores Park coffee trailer. The planning department does this for every business that opens in a space where there previously wasn’t a business. When you add it up, I think it’s actually less work than approving a permit and reaching out to the community after the fact.
I have respect for people who disagree with me, but that’s why it’s so important that Parks and Rec use processes that are already in place in other departments with more experience, so we can have this discussion prior to the permit being issued.
I believe this: Public parks are not undeveloped land waiting for the right business opportunity. The very first priority of parks and rec, more important than fixing swing sets, offering classes, and fixing vandalized golf courses, is keeping parks open, public spaces. I understand, for reasons I mentioned above, you might disagree with that sentiment.
I stepped back from the campaign because I didn’t see a viable solution. The permits had already been issued to two good, local businesses. I’m a fan of James Freeman and Blue Bottle Coffee and as I learned more it became so clear that it just wasn’t his fault. I’m pretty sure he would have liked a better permitting process as well, he would have liked to know how the public felt. So anyway, I stepped out, and said so publicly. While the permitting process was a mess (the original proposal was for a pushcart which only later became a generator powered twelve-foot trailer, which I have a picture of, and I assure you is much uglier than you think) there wasn’t much to do about it except push Parks and Rec to change so this didn’t happen again. It didn’t seem like Blue Bottle should be penalized for their mistake.
I had several phone calls with James, and even tried to broker a solution between the two sides, and then Blue Bottle decided it just wasn’t worth it to open in the park.
I’m also in favor of drinking delicious coffee in the park, fortunately there’s six coffee shops within a block of the park. And, for people that are willing to walk two blocks, there’s a Blue Bottle outlet where you can get delicious Blue Bottle coffee made by the cup.
Finally, I don’t think it’s ironic to want to keep parks public, yet make a reasonable income from a private business. I don’t think there’s any conflict between those two ideas at all.
Best,
Stephen
October 26th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Thanks Stephen. And while my comment was a bit sarcastic, the question was in good faith, so thank you for answering it.
You’re right that the core of the disagreement is about “privatization.” On the one hand, I agree — parks are nicer without billboards, just like websites are nicer without ads. On the other hand, I think you’re making a knee-jerk move to call any business “privatization” and assume that anything for sale equals seeing the park as “undeveloped land waiting for the right business opportunity.” A park filled with billboards is in an important sense no longer a park, but I don’t see why a park with a coffee kiosk is any less an “open, public space.” And an even more pleasant one. (There are hot dog stands in Central Park, croissants for sale in the Jardin de Luxembourg, etc. etc., as you acknowledge.)
This move seems to me like a strangely mirror-image reflex to the right-wing nonsense that anything the government does is wrong and evil, we should make government small enough to drown it in the bathtub, etc. Blue Bottle in the park isn’t big-bad-privatization, it’s just Blue Bottle in the park.
Maybe it would open the policy door to Budweiser commercials painted on all the grass or something, and I’m wrong about seeing it as harmless. But that’s where I’m coming from, and I think probably other people I know too, who don’t understand why anyone except competing businesses got pissed off about all this.
October 26th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
An advertising banner on The Rumpus doesn’t seem like that big a deal.
This post seems like fair notice.
The Rumpus is a great open, public space online.
October 27th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Advertising on the Rumpus seems like a good idea. Whatever it takes to keep this thing going.
It would be great, however, if you could curate the adds somewhat and reject the blatant internet scams. I understand the way the ad brokers work so I know that you often don’t get much say in which ads you take.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
feed your people, we can take the ads.
November 3rd, 2010 at 6:04 am
Swallow the red pill and move forward. Do what you need to do to keep this site running.
But, to second Aaron: if you could curate the advertising that would be great. As it is, whenever you link a book you’re already giving free eyes to the small bookstores and presses in that link.
If you could attract paid advertising from those bookstores and presses–who seem to share your (our) understanding of writing, reading, and design–that would be a good setup all around. On the other hand, if your ads are for “Free Credit Scores” then you’re truly a whore.
There’s advertising and there’s advertising. Trust us enough to know the difference.
November 3rd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I agree with Dan S. above. Those flashing credit score ads and the “meet her now!” facebook or whatever things seem like the kind of eyesore the Rumpus is, in general, not into.
November 4th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Y’know, sometimes I discover awesome books simply based on the ads over on that giant site with the html. And you clearly care enough about the Rumpus experience to keep the ads from going nutty.