Lijit's Value-Added Search Offends Great Blogger, Mack Collier

Mack Collier hates the blogging search tool, Lijit. And when Mack talks, everyone listens. At least the smart ones. Mack is one of the brightest, most generous bloggers I know, and I know a lot of bright, generous bloggers. However, try as I might to understand his objection to Lijit, I hit a stumbling block.

The problem stems from a feature Lijit calls "re-search."

Here's how it works:
If you come to this site through a search engine, that means you were looking for something in particular. The page you land on may or may not satisfy whatever your need was when you searched for your terms. So instead of just giving up on the user and assuming you have nothing of value that may answer his question, by default, when you have Lijit installed, the user in that case would be provided with additional links from your blog -- as well as a tiny (but clearly marked) ad from Google.

His anger with the company that makes the tool is centered around two key points:

• Lijit didn't tell him about the feature and that he could disable it.
• Lijit is monetizing his content.

Says Mack:

"I did a Google search for 'viral garden' just now, clicked on the top Google result (this blog), and was more than a little shocked and embarrassed by what I saw. As the picture to the right shows, the LiJit widget had served up several posts I have left here that you could click on. But as you can see under those posts, it also served up something that I didn't know it would, and certainly didn't give it permission to provide."

Needless to say, I see it a bit differently:

• I didn't read the instruction copy when I installed Lijit anyway, so I'm not sure information about re-search wasn't there. If it was, I missed it, but if it wasn't, it's possible that its absence facilitated greater speed of installation.
• Lijit isn't monetizing my content, but is rather monetizing search, according to the user's search terms, as they come to this site, and even then only if either my content or my presentation of it doesn't suit what the user is looking for (and the ad does).

Relevancy: The Holy Grail of Advertising
When Google introduced AdWords, it was a revolution in Internet advertising. It wasn't just because it was a new way to attract advertising revenue, but rather because, by tying in search terms to paid clicks, it made advertising more useful to users and measurable to advertisers.

Unlike just about all advertising that came before it, users had to first express interest in a particular topic and then see an ad and decide clicking it was worth their while before an advertiser would have to pay a red cent.

It was a stroke of genius -- and a major, much-needed coup in the advertising realm not accustomed to the user being in control of what they saw and how they interacted with it.

It's the same with Lijit.

Use What You Need. Stay as Long as You Like.
I have no idea what search term you used when you came to this site (though Lijit has some nifty reporting features that tell you after-the-fact), but whatever it is you were looking for, I hope I was able to give you an answer that met your needs -- or at least point you in the right direction.

As I told Mack, as was the case with Intense Debate, if Lijit ever got in the way of the completion of my readers' goals, I'd get rid of it.

But as it stands, Lijit's tools only helps people find what they're looking for. If that happens to be on this site, I'm very happy about that. If that happens to be elsewhere, I won't get in their way. And if Lijit happens to make a buck or two off of that, why would I care?

The advertiser, not I, has to bear that cost. And all the users get is content they want -- or at least a clue as to where they might find it.

The choice to click or not to click the ad is entirely theirs. - Cam Beck

Comments

[Barney Moran]

This is a great argument concerning the pro and con functionality of the Lijit Widget. Along with consideration of functionality is the critical sanctity of Publishers private statistics. We at P.U.B. consider the safety of the information any app or widget(s) may be gathering, unbeknownst to the unwitting Publisher who installs them.

P.U.B. [Publishers Union of Bloggers] has pending inquires to Widget Providers concerning how they generate their income and what percentage of this income goes to the Blog Publisher making the critical decision to allow a Widget on their site for their readers. In addition we are requesting transparency on the critical issue of how the private statistic from Publishers Blogs are being used, hopefully with the Publisher’s permission!

P.U.B. expected to hear back from Lijit on these financial and private statistics issues from P.U.B’s inquiry we sent to Lijit in mid April 2008. So far all we’ve read is a public blog response from a Lijit employee advising Lijit has no money, and more recently, we received an email from Lijit’s CEO, Todd Vernon, attacking P.U.B. and falsely accusing we are writing fictitious emails. Any actual answers to our questions about the use of Publisher’s stats, or revenue as it applies to Lijit? Nada. Nothing. P.U.B.’s job is to fight for Publishers by asking the hard questions and demanding answers. If all Widget companies respond as Lijit’s done up to this point, P.U.B. has a big workload for our Publishers, and your membership and support helps us all as Publishers, thanks.

If P.U.B. gets a straight answer on topic from Lijit, not smoke and mirrors, we will let great Blog Publishers like you know their exact revenue/statistics use/sharing deal. Currently we are also working with Blog Publishers to track performance hit evaluations of Widgets too.

Will publish these results to keep the community of Blog Publishers informed on this critical component of Widgets on our Blogs.

Sincerely,

Barney Moran
Founder, P.U.B.

[Paul Herring]

When deciding whether or not to include a widget on the blog like Lejit, I look at the value that the widget will provide minus costs.

I don't have a problem with Lejit placing adds on search. They should be upfront about it but I consider it a good exchange for the nice search functionality and reporting they provide.

Wake up and smell the economy, nothing is really for free. Lejit has to pay programmers, staff, etc. and deserves compensation for a tool that provides value to site visitors.

Outside of the possible transparency issue, if you don't like that they place ads on site search, don't use it. It's a free blogosphere (not in terms of costs but in term of choice).

Paul

[Mack Collier]

Cam as I said on my blog (several times), the main problem I have with the LiJit widget is that it was serving up ads WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE.

That's a serious breach of trust, and a dealbreaker for me. This isn't about value, it's about disclosure and honesty. At least it is for me. You obviously see things differently, that's why you get to keep your LiJit widget up, I get to take mine down.

[Mack Collier]

BTW, another quick clarification; I never said I hate the LiJit widget. I simply don't like the fact that it was serving up ads, WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE. The potential value of the widget is superceded (at least in my mind) by LiJit's failure to disclose exactly what their widget would, and would not, do.

For the record (and I think I stated this on my blog), my interactions with the people from LiJit have been very pleasant, and my guess is that they now realize that they stepped in a pile, and will be more careful with their blogger-relations from this point forward.

[Lewis Green]

Cam,

As always, your analysis runs deep and true. I sometimes wonder why we social media types who are also business people question the legitimacy of making money on, in this case, providing content through search.

I see it another way: Not only does the used get the value of content, they can choose to check out something they may be interested in purchasing. Choice is the key word. Advertising isn't evil and in this case it isn't intrusive. Don't see the problem.

[Mack Collier]

"I sometimes wonder why we social media types who are also business people question the legitimacy of making money on, in this case, providing content through search."

Lewis would you please point out to me exactly who is saying that LiJit shouldn't expect to make money on their service?

[Cam Beck]

Mack - I recognize that you don't object to the monetization of the widget. For even on the search results page through the use of the widget on your site, your users would have been exposed to adwords, and you would have known that from your first use/test of it when you installed it.

But even if they served ads without your knowledge, once you did gain that knowledge, you had to ask yourself, "Now what? Does this add value to or does it harm my users?"

As I tried to express here and your site, I think it adds value (and even the ad has nominal value - It certainly doesn't get in the way).

So the disclosure issue to me is a straw man.

"You mean I get a search tool, a nifty reporting tool, excellent service, AND a way to add MORE value to my readers?"

It is sort of like after you've had a refrigerator for 10 years, finding out that it has a lifetime warranty that a third party pays for.

Just as I wouldn't be upset about that added value, nor am I upset about the re-search tool.

So I didn't know. Eventually I found out. And I think it's cool.

[Cam Beck]

Hi Barney -
I really have no interest in finding out how much Lijit is making. This is between Lijit and the people who use the tool. They are not a public company as far as I know, and therefore have no fiduciary duty to disclose their revenues.

When I agreed to use the tool, I simply wanted a useful and effective way to search the site. That's what I got, plus so much more.

If Lijit has found a way to make that service generate sustaining income for them, then that means to me only that, unless their methods become intrusive to my readers, that I don't need to worry about actively seeking another search-tool provider when this one inevitably goes under.

In fact, if I have any concern, it's that Lijit may not be able to generate enough income through this system to sustain their operations.

As the tool now stands, between my visitors and I, it's win-win.

[Todd Vernon]

Cam, thanks for the post. Thanks also for all the other comments. As I said over on Chris's blog we made a mistake not including our test of ad's in the re-search box in our weekly stats email notifying publishers. We pulled those ad's out until the release of our publisher opt in ad network software release shortly.

Lastly, Sorry about Barney, he is a former disgruntled employee and we have no intention to provide him any information now or ever.

[Cam Beck]

Todd - Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for the free tool. :)

Also, as long as he's not committing libel, hurling invective at my readers, or completely off point (e.g., spam), Barney, as all visitors, is welcome to interject his opinions here, and I will consider them in their due course.

[CK]

That is one fetching photo of Mack up there. Cam, your blog gets better looking all the time (bring back more photos of the baby and you'll have the best-looking blog in all the land).

I've now seen two posts (Mack/Chris) that have been "surprised" by Lijit's ads. Two posts by two colleagues I respect who give me value-added lessons/content all the time. I am not speaking as to whether or not the monetization of the "free" widget is right/wrong—nor am I speaking to whether the ads pay for themselves due to the widget’s value (but I do appreciate and “hear” Cam’s argument.)

I'm speaking to the fact that I'm a marketer who understands—and preaches all the time at my own blog—that without taking care, and building/maintaining trust, of your "free" audience (bloggers), you won't be able to take care of your paid audience (advertisers).

So it seems the remedy is that Lijit needs to (1) speak to those marketing bloggers about their concerns (which I understand they have—fabulous!) and then (2) make it MORE clear going forward that ads are part of the search (or re-search) deal. Let’s face it, there is no free and that’s why I pay for my blogging platform as ads have a funny way of creeping up when it’s “100% free!”. (duh). Oh, and let’s not be thinking that customers read the TOS so making it more clear upfront is a really good idea. Has Lijit done this? I’m asking because I don’t know.

And then bloggers can decide if they want the widget and Lijit can be totally upfront with users and have a revenue stream. Seems that’s a win-win, no?

Btw, I’m constantly telling my clients how valuable "negative" feedback is. Let's face it, customers have always been talking and now we can hear them. So this is a great example and can help Lijit in the near and long-terms. Right now I’m working a client through some negative feedback and, I tell you, these users are my best friends as they’ve taken the time to help me show the client where to improve so their product is far better. Yippie.

As for Barney, as Cam said, he has a right to be heard and voice-in. “Disgruntled employees” are very interesting. Why are they interesting? Because sometimes they blow hot air and sometimes they blow some much-needed whistles and make positive change. Barney is not hurting people (like some horribly ill disgruntled postal workers have done); it appears he is using his beliefs and starting a union. I have many colleagues who were disgruntled with the way their employers did business and then started their own company to do it the “right” way—-many agencies were born this way. I’m not saying that Lijit should hand over financials, but maybe all Widget companies need to be providing more info. to their users…maybe not…I honestly do not know enough about Wijit’s at this point.

What I do know is marketing—and I think if Lijit is just more clear at the get-go then this will be a non-issue and only help grow their biz and revenues. (and then you can give Tara a raise because she is a wonderful brand ambassador for Lijit)

Lew: I think I can help clear up your question—and I completely understand why it can be baffling--but this comment is soooo long already so we’ll talk that soon, OK? It merits that ;-).

PS: "Widget" like "Blog" is a word that just bugs me. Just sayin'.

[Cam Beck]

Ck - First off - WOW. What a great comment. Especially the part about how beautiful my daughter is. :)

Here's another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4Tf8IivarQ

Now. Onto other things.

Your marketing point is well taken. In the end it doesn't matter much whether Lijit was "right" or "wrong" in an absolute sense, but rather that the people they rely on perceive it to be a violation of trust. If to them it is, then it is, because it speaks to the permission they feel they gave Lijit when they installed the tool on their sites.

I don't consider it to be a violation of trust and I don't think anyone else should either, which is why I wrote this, but that Mack (someone I respect very much) does is an issue that Lijit must address quickly and diplomatically, regardless.

[Mack Collier]

"But even if they served ads without your knowledge, once you did gain that knowledge, you had to ask yourself, "Now what? Does this add value to or does it harm my users?""

No Cam, IMO that is COMPLETELY the wrong question to ask.

The question *I* asked myself is 'Ok if they added the Google ads without my knowing about it, what will they add next?'

And I am a bit perplexed/stunned that you added this:

"I don't consider it to be a violation of trust and I don't think anyone else should either"

Wow. That's a very telling statement. Ok then.

[Cam Beck]

"The question *I* asked myself is 'Ok if they added the Google ads without my knowing about it, what will they add next?'"

Fair enough, Mack. But you see, that prospect doesn't scare me. I'll deal with that if and when it ever does happen.

After all, I can always delete the tool if I feel it gets in the way of me or my users. As of now, that hasn't happened. In fact, it has only helped.

"Wow. That's a very telling statement. Ok then."

I'm not sure I have a good response to that... But let me assure you that whatever disagreement I have with you on this issue, I still consider you one of the best and brightest people I know, and I did not respond thus without due consideration. So take that for what it's worth.

[CK]

And today I am reminded why I love being at the outset of this wacky and wild Web 2.0 world. Truly.

Ya know, every few months I go back and read the convos on the nikon debate--long-time readers might recall that was the blogger outreach program where I sorta had an opinion (um, just a small one ;-). I go back and read through those convos because they remind me of two key things: (1) how fortunate we are to be able to express so many viewpoints and (2) how very much we all care about the profession, customers/readers, value, transparency, sustainable revenue models, etc., etc.

Amazing how much I’ve come to count on you guys to help me look at so many issues from different angles. Thanks times infinity.

PS: I still hate the words "blog" and "widget".

[Cam Beck]

CK -
I remember when "widget" was used to describe just any old hypothetical tool you presumed a fictional company made. Now it isn't hypothetical.

I hate the terms (both of them), too, but I'm at a loss to think of a single word that describes something like this, in these contexts, that doesn't mean anything else.

[Barney Moran]

I respectively submit I'm not a 'disgruntled' employee; I loved my time at lijit. What is the opposite of dis-gruntled? Gruntled? When I'm unshaven and have bedhead I'm certainly gruntled.

The goal of P.U.B. is to make sure Publisher's get their fair share. P.U.B. has never questioned any companies right to make money, they should. Publishers, the people making the source content and generating the views, deserve a slice of the pie, and to know transparently how their blog's data is used sold.

I don't care if I'm a Martian or a gruntled, these questions speak for themselves. The feedback on this post is among the best I've seen on this topic, which is rarely addressed, and I thank everyone, including Todd, for their willingness to at least speak, it’s a start, and it says a lot about the blog community.

Barney