Q: Why is Climate Progress running ads, including one from the Nuclear Energy Institute?

Posted on

"Q: Why is Climate Progress running ads, including one from the Nuclear Energy Institute?"

A: Nonprofits need money, too, and I trust my readers.

We are doing a trial run of advertising on Climate Progress. It is a potentially significant source of revenue since according to Google Analytics, last month I had 1.1 million page views!

These are tough economic times all around, including for foundations and other donors who have most of their money in the stock market. My father was editor-in-chief of a medium-sized newspaper for 30 years, so I grew up understanding that ads are part of doing business for the media.

The editorial content of this blog is not going to be influenced by the ads, needless to say. Indeed, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) signed on for a trial ad run. I was initially concerned about whether NEI might have ads whose content I questioned, but the same NEI ad you will see running in rotation here is in today’s Washington Post, Greenwire, and ThinkProgress. My readers (i.e. you) are certainly as discriminating as theirs and more knowledgeable on energy issues.

I have written and placed this post — An introduction to nuclear power — on the sidebar for any new or occasional readers who might not have already read my more detailed analyses of nuclear power.

I’d love to hear your thoughts, especially on the NEI ad when it runs.

« »

20 Responses to Q: Why is Climate Progress running ads, including one from the Nuclear Energy Institute?

  1. John Hollenberg says:

    If you need the ads to keep the ship afloat, I don’t see a problem. We are all exposed to all kinds of advertising on other web sites. I believe the readers of Climate Progress are sufficiently discerning that it won’t be a problem no matter the content of the ads. Of course, hopefully you won’t accept ads from global warming deniers :-)

  2. CP is coming over to the “dark” side, or maybe we’ll call it the “glowing” side. ;-)

  3. Gail says:

    Oh pleaz, run ads by global warming deniers! It would be terrific fun to point out how lame they are. You don’t have nearly enough trolls as it is, James Hrynyshyn has monopolized them all.

  4. Philip says:

    I enjoy mocking ads from Exxon and whoever with slogans like ‘The future is green’ or ‘Investing in Potential’, ‘Technology is our Inspiration’. Totally vacuous.

  5. Brewster says:

    Gail – Thanks for the link to James – He sure does attract his fair share of [s]wingnuts[/s] – [s]trolls[/s] – deniers.

  6. Gail says:

    here’s the link if anyone else wants it, to an excellent blog…and hysterically funny comments!

    http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/

  7. Gary Herstein says:

    Confronting a denier with facts may never persuade the denier, but the additional dollop of emotional energy that the person must now invest in their denial is energy they cannot invest in evangelizing their position.

    I see accepting ads from the NEI as something of the same thing. The resources they spend here are resources that did not get spent elsewhere. So beyond wondering just how bent they’ll become as folks here line up to mock them, my only response is “Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059170/)

  8. So long as Joe uses the ad income to keep doing what Climate Progress has been doing then I say not only run the ads but hell, I’ll click on them too if it means more revenue to CP. Just don’t expect me to actually pay any attention to them.

    1.1 million page views in just the last month?!
    WOW.

    And there’s hardly ever any naked photos of hotties here either. Imagine the traffic if you had a different Ms/Mr.. Global Warming pictorial each month with less and less clothing worn in response to each increase in world temp and ghg numbers.

    Let the deniers deal with that!

  9. Gail says:

    ah ha, creative greenius, are you willing to volunteer as Mr. GW pix this month February on the calendar?? Legions of fans await your partial disrobing..okay not, just me! But I’m only first in line of the 1.1 million!

  10. Steve Bloom says:

    1.1M page views!? But Joe, according to RP Jr. you’re completely discredited! (And I hate to mention it, but his latest air capture opus is in need of vetting.)

    [JR: Yes, I was kind of staggered by the numbers. I had been using what I’m now told is a less accurate tracking system. But with the ads starting, they wanted to know what the Google analytics number was. I may do a separate post on this, just because it floored me. Certainly it motivates me to keep blogging as much as I have been.

    There is no person who has been so widely debunked by the climate science blogosphere as RP Jr. I try to ignore most of his yipping until except when the MSM quotes him or publishes him.]

  11. john says:

    If it keeps the blogs coming, by all means advetise!

  12. Brendan says:

    As long as you’re okay with being sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, I’m okay with the ads being there.

  13. I join the chorus saying “if it keeps your blog going – go for it”. Anyone who reads your work regularly will know you don’t write to make money from advertising or to be popular with big business.

  14. Karl says:

    I agree. If Big Nuke and Big Coal want to pay you to discredit them then I say let them go right ahead!

  15. Neven says:

    Jesus said it was okay to steal if you were hungry, so if you need this to keep Climate Progress running or it allows you to spend more time writing there is nothing wrong with it. On the contrary.

    I do believe however that in a future society run sustainably there is hardly or no place at all for advertising. Advertising is a big part of the underlying problem causing Global Warming. Advertising is actually propaganda most of the time.

  16. I have no problem with the ads, I just hope the site maintains its professional design.

  17. Ads might be good. The readers of this site will be able to glean the truth, and why not allow vital industries a fair hearing, especially if they are paying for it? I am confident that they won’t abuse the access, but if they do, I expect they will quickly be corrected and their attempts at propaganda will backfire.

  18. This is really discouraging, Joe. You can’t have it both ways: opposing the insidious disinformation spread by the nuclear, coal, oil and other industries, yet turning your own website into a disseminator of that disinformation. Even if your readers discount those ads, the advertisers gain respectability by being on your site. If you really must take ads to keep your site afloat (and it’s not transparent whether that is a necessity or a luxury), then at least limit the ads to companies that are not fighting the very core values the site espouses.

  19. T B says:

    So are you basically suggesting that a nuclear power advertisement on your blog doesn’t entail you promoting nuclear power?

    [JR: No more so than the same ad which is run in the Washington Post or Greenwire. We did have a discussion here at CAP, but my basic view is that my readers are very smart and well-informed — so I’m not terribly worried they will be confused. Certainly I hope you are not suggesting that every organization that runs an ad is promoting what the ad is promoting. indeed, the right way to look at it is, nuclear power industry is promoting my blog!]

  20. T B says:

    Thanks for responding (and thanks for leaving that antagonistic comment up too).
    Personally, I object to the nuclear power advertising here, but I respect how you responded to that last comment (in which I objected to that advertising with a provocative, loaded question).

    I appreciate a lot of your work, but I think the nuclear power advertising here is a lot like this car advertising on ‘mass’ transit –
    Great cars
    (That link is to an entry on my blog; the post is mainly about one particular advertisement, but I also mention similar advertising which I’ve seen.)
    (Of course, you don’t reject cars per se; and a lot of ‘mass’ transit companies probably wouldn’t agree with my preference for seeing their operations replace a lot of automobile driving.)