Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Jumps into Radio Advertising

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the google-overlord-jokes-abound dept.

Google 97

Luke PiWalker writes "Just days after Microsoft announced its online advertising entry, Google has announced their entry into the radio industry. Google announced today that it has signed a deal to purchase dMarc Broadcasting Inc. for a cool $102 million. The deal will allow Google to enhance its presence in the advertising industry over to the radio industry. What's even more interesting is that Google says it plans to integrate its highly successful AdSense program with those from dMarc. The Google and dMarc deal is expected to close at the end of the first quarter, 2006."

cancel ×

97 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dupe... (0, Troll)

rfinnvik (16122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498082)

and in other news... [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498215)

Bobby Brown == Larry "Penisface" Page
Got a job doin' radio promo
An' none of the jocks can even tell I'm a homo.
Eventually me 'n' a friend
Sorta drifted along into s&m
I can take about an hour on the tower of power
'long as I gets a little golden shower
Sounds like Google to me.

Re:Dupe... (2, Informative)

njvic (614279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498305)

For ScuttleMonkey, it's at least 2 dupes in as many days. His other was the 50 millisecond judging one [slashdot.org] yesterday

What's amazing is that this Google posting is still on the front page!!

Re:Dupe... (1)

peteremcc (913806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498540)

yeah i posted on the other one earlier today (different time zone here in nz so yes it was today), and was modded down as redundant for saying that this was the problem with slashdot and that the editors obviously didn't have enough time to cope with the amount of stuff they were trying to publish. i guess i will say it again, maybe this time i will get modded down for being a dupe?? :D ------- Peter http://peteremcc.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]

Well (5, Informative)

Hopieopdepaus (884724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498086)

People who didn't read this yesterday (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/17/18132 01 [slashdot.org] ) happily thank you for the reminder.

Re:Well (-1, Offtopic)

lxs (131946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498239)

I for one welcome our story duping overlords.

Re:Well [its a dupe, so what] (2, Interesting)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498528)

Meh, Its not that big a deal that its a dupe methinks.... there's been a lot more time for people to analyse this news.

For instance, this article [theregister.co.uk] in the register makes this interesting point:
Digital radio is simply an MPEG stream, and contextualizing digital streams, and injecting advertisements into them is Google's core competency - and not some untethered spacewalk into the unknown. And while creative agencies are certainly looking at the growth of paid web search with some trepidation, Google has shown no inclination to get very "creative" itself. It's as much a recognition that the phenomenal growth in paid web classified advertising can't, as Google has itself long predicted, be sustained.
Two points there:

1) Google's foray into traditional radio could simply be to facilitate its digital radio.

2) Google's growth cannot be sustained in a single market.

Neither of these were discussed too much in yesterday's comments.

Duh (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14505073)

First off, the state of radio: ClearChannel is reducing (or has reduced) the number of ads they run, XM and Sirius are making fast gains. The future of radio advertising is looking bleak. A lot of radio ads are sold by salesmen, with high costs. Radio basically consists of pop music and a lot of fractured markets like country, rock and rap. Every day, more of those fractured markets change to pop hoping to get more listeners and consequently more advertisers. If your goal is to make a market out of the sale and purchase of advertising, the last thing you want to see is consolidation, shrinking supplies and fewer buyers.

Secondly, the state of internet; Google has shown an immense capability to compete in internet advertising systems. They've basically automated the sales process, and have a stellar program that can take text pages and generate a degree of relevance to a given ad. Their internet ad division brings in more and more money each quarter. Even their competitors are growing at 50 to 100 percent quarter to quarter.

All the analysts appear to think that Google is going to expand their current services into radio. Expanding there doesn't make sense. Nobody's listening to radio, and the size of that nobody gets smaller every day. The technology needed to create a context and compare it to a given advertiser is ridiculusly hard. Google almost certainly knows this (to call contextualizing digital streams Google's "core competancy" is a foolish oversimplification); what I don't know is if Google plans to try anyways. To give an example, I doubt lining up an ad about Mutual Funds following a song about flashing bling is likely to do well, despite some similarities. Google's text ads work better here because the Internet is a very big place. Most of the advertising that AdSense runs is put on informative articles rather than entertainment, which means they generally don't have to translate content into interest. It's possible that dMarc has a huge and valuable technology that can already come up with some of this demographics information, but I don't expect to see anything out of google that will improve or create new information of this sort. I don't think they do either: look at the conditional terms. Google might have to pay ten times as much for dMarc depending on things like ad inventory growth (pretty much out of their hands if the market continues to contract), integration and revenue growth targets are met. Of these three, I'd only expect the integration one to have a decent chance at paying off.

Instead, its pretty obvious this acquisition is more about what dMarc did BEFORE it was spun off into a radio advertising firm: it sold more internet ads than doubleclick. Many of the key people are still there. Maybe they'll start buying and selling digital radio ads, but I don't see that being a very good game (Yahoo!'s already tried it and they just missed earnings expectations) and there's some complexities revolving around the broadcast of ads over digital radio streams. What makes a lot more sense is video.google.com. Huge inventory of pre-existing content, and they've already got the functionality to take payments from advertisers and to pay video holders. The obvious tactic would be to put the ad in front of video clips, but this probably requires a change in the EULA to let google do that, which may or may not construe an affront of their goodwill. The less obvious strategy is to build an opt in system whereby the content authors get paid a bit for putting in their targeted ads. The benefit here is that part of the effort (determining when and how many ads to introduce) is removed from google and placed into the hands of the content producers.

If this is the case, it provides dMarc with a way into an expanding market and provides google with a good way for Google to expand their revenue growth outside of a narrowly defined market. The downside is that this is still yet another form of advertising, not the kind of diversity of earnings that I'd like to see from a company now worth more than Berkshire-Hathaway.

For an interesting discussion... (0, Offtopic)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498088)

...of this breaking news, try reading this popular news forum [slashdot.org] .

Hey! I've figured the problem. They forgot to specify 'unique' in the 'title' column definition of the 'articles' table in the slashdot db.
(To be fair to ScuttleMonkey, this is a dupe of an article at least 24 hours old.)

DANGER WILL ROBINSON! (1)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498105)

The article submitters site uses hideous floating graphics, and flickering gifs that follow your cursor. It may scar your web design skills for life.

Re:DANGER WILL ROBINSON! (1)

Crizp (216129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498339)

On his page he also gives himself up as a Slashdot troll, Slashvertiser and general idiot.

Re:DANGER WILL ROBINSON! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498377)

your mother gave herself up as a slashdot troll, slashvertiser and general idiot. ooh burrrnnn

I sure hope... (0, Offtopic)

yobjob (942868) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498089)

...this has no effect on the Pluto probe!

Re:I sure hope... (1)

chadbailey (886903) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498371)

ha.... ha..... no.

Hey asshole (0, Troll)

Muramasa (534108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498097)

Try reading Slashdot. Then maybe we wouldn't be seeing this shit again.

WHAT DO WE DO (5, Funny)

i8puppies (910027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498106)

Crap crap, Google isnt on the front page anymore!
QUICKLY! REPOST BEFORE ANYONE NOTICES!

Google will soon get bloated (3, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498113)

A lot of googles success to date has been because it was a small(ish) lithe
fleet footed company that managed to wrongfoot the large sluggish opposition
corporations such as MS that find it almost impossible to make snap decisions.
However recently google seems to be putting lots of fingers in lots of pies
and getting rather fat. I'm wondering how long before this golden child of
the dot come revolution turns into yet the type of fat bloated corporation
that its founders we so successful in outdoing....

Re:Google will soon get bloated (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498308)

I hope you realise that people have been saying this just about every time Google does something new. And guess what? It still remains the best search engine and the front page hasn't changed a damn bit. When you go to Google.com you still get the same service you've gotten for years. But hey, maybe you're right, maybe it's THIS activity that will be the great downfall of Google. Give me a break.

Re:Google will soon get bloated (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498315)

Whats their search engine go to do with it? That can just leave it as is.
I'm talking about their ability to come up with new stuff fast.

Re:Google will soon get bloated (0, Redundant)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498348)


I'd say it changed a lot:
http://www.machinehasnoagenda.com/images/my_google .png [machinehasnoagenda.com]

Also they used to brag they're not like Yahoo, turning their portal into a mish-mash of all things, but now we have Picasa, Google Racks, GMail, Video/TV Shop, Google Pack, GTalk and what not.

It's just becoming a large company and doing lots of less coordinated stuff than before - let's face it.

That doesn't mean it will become worse as a product, but it's not going to surprise me if it does.

Re:Google will soon get bloated (0)

timecop (16217) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498516)

sir is that a linux application screenshot?
because it looks fucking horrible.
jesus christ, what horrible abuse of antialiased fonts
and ugly, not proportional buttons.

Re:Google will soon get bloated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498634)

Looks like a WindowsXP screenshot to me

Re:Google will soon get bloated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498902)

agreed, it is XPish.

Re:Google will soon get bloated (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14500715)

I picked it randomly but it's not XP, as it neither standard antialias nor ClearType (and XP has no other rendering system).

Not it at all. (2, Insightful)

lheal (86013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498341)

In business, there are two conflicting necessities: stay with what you know, and diversify. You have to stay with what you know or the competition (in areas you don't understand) will eat you alive. You have to diversify, or grow stagnant and then die when your niche has a downturn.

Google is diversifying, while staying in the ad business. It's not like they bought a shoe company or something. The cliche they'll use is probably "synergy".

Re:Google will soon get bloated (1)

spectrumCoder (944322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498728)

The best thing about Google is that it still has a 'new company' feel to it. That means it doesn't have a defined core market, core audience, core products, and hence it feels free to do anything it feels like.

The very fact that Google has managed to do so much and to put its fingers into so many pies is a testament to the nimbleness of the corporation. I'd like to see the News Corporation, AOL or Microsoft (all of whom desperately want to be big internet players and have the money to do it) come up with as good ideas as Google has.

But they're not going to - those companies are old and fat, with too many managers and too few bright sparks.

Does /. have RSS feeds? (0)

nowaycomputer (920206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498117)

So, is Slashdot just a news syndication site now? Of Itself? [slashdot.org]

Re:Does /. have RSS feeds? (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498379)

Wooooaaaaa, slashdot has invented Recursive Sindication!!!!!

duplicated story error overflow... warning warning, system will be halted in 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 ... *head explodes*

new slashdot slogan! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498126)

Martin Fink tells it like it is:
The question is NOT why you should post dupes to slashdot, but WHY NOT?

Find the 10 similarities (3, Funny)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498129)

Who knew "Opposites Attract" was written about Google & Microsoft? There we go, read and compare:

Baby seems we never ever agree
You like the movies
And I like T.V.
I take things serious
And you take 'em light
I go to bed early
And I party all night
Our friends are sayin'
We ain't gonna last
Cuz I move slowly
And baby I'm fast
I like it quiet
And I love to shout
But when we get together
It just all work out

I take-2 steps forward
I take-2 steps back
We come together
Cuz opposites attract
And you know-it ain't fiction
Just a natural fact
We come together
Cuz opposites attract

Re:Find the 10 similarities (1)

Randall_Jones (849846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498184)

"we come together"? could a google/MS merger be in the works? Paula Abdul obviously thinks so...

Re:Find the 10 similarities (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498216)

""we come together"? could a google/MS merger be in the works?"

Nah, Paula really meant the resolution to the Kai-Fu argument (a.k.a. popularly the Kung Fu argument).
http://internetweek.cmp.com/internetbusiness/17540 0164 [cmp.com]

Re:Find the 10 similarities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14504993)

Yes, the question, though, is "who buys whom?"...

Everybody sing (-1, Offtopic)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498148)

My D-U-P-L-I-C-A-T-E
It gets posted today...

Re:Everybody sing (0, Redundant)

Bulmakau (918237) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498364)

My d-u-p-l-i-c-a-t-e?
Is that like "My Y-a-h-o-o"?

oh for the love of.... (1, Insightful)

compling (514537) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498155)

Just search the site, will ya ? To begin with, you can limit it to the frontpage for the last 7 days. Even that would be an improvement.

Screw it. Just search the actual, current frontpage.

Re:oh for the love of.... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498386)

http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=radio [slashdot.org]

Google Jumps into Radio Advertising
On January 18th, 2006 with 45 comments
Luke PiWalker writes "Just days after Microsoft announced its online advertising entry, Google has announced their entry into the radio industry. Google...

Google To Buy Radio Advertising Firm
On January 18th, 2006 with 144 comments
M3rk1n_Muffl3y writes "According to the BBC Google is buying US radio advertising firm dMarc Broadcasting for an upfront payment of $102m (£58m), rising...

Adsense Everywhere now? (1, Redundant)

Willeh (768540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498161)

I was listening to an episode of This Week in Tech the other day and Leo kept mentioning someone's theory that Google's true goal is to get AdSense everywhere.

This move just seems to back up that claim.

Re:Adsense Everywhere now? (3, Funny)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498183)

C'mon!

Bad enough to have a dupe article - we don't need dupe comments too [slashdot.org]

Re:Adsense Everywhere now? (1)

Willeh (768540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498217)

Oh Belgium, your clever cunning ways have uncovered me! CURSES!

Re:Adsense Everywhere now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498791)

what a faggot you are

Re:Adsense Everywhere now? (1)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498282)

Goddammit! I was gonna post that! [slashdot.org]

Duped comments too (1)

magicchex (898936) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498172)

Here's my dupe [slashdot.org] .

What he said!

Don't bother ScuttleMonkey (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498174)

Just take one of those Trauma Pills and it will all be beter tomorrow.

Re:Don't bother ScuttleMonkey (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498223)

OMG that explains it!

"Funny, I don't remember posting that...?"

*pops another pill*

"Aaah, that's better. Look, a story about Google!"

Submitters Site... (1)

LostAngel (891826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498202)

Anyone else notice that the submitters site is an anti-slashdot site?

Re:Submitters Site... (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498236)

And apparently dedicated to trolling Slashdot. With the new and clever idea of submitting dupes. Twice. *twitch* Twice.

Why don't (1, Interesting)

ShaolinTiger (798138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498205)

Slashdot implement something like Digg so when the editors have a story in front of them it will tell them "Are you sure it's not a Dupe, these similar stories have been submitted recently..etc.etc"

other avenues (2, Insightful)

DarkClown (7673) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498212)

So now I'm wondering what this rumored google cube is going to be be like - if the os will be dynamically branded, and I'm also curiouser and curiouser about tv ad opportunities they're sure to persue. Y'know, they could save tivo's butt - what if there was a google ad that popped up when you were pausing or fast forwarding or whatever - tivo should have tons of the kind of data that google is basing their contextual ads on. I gues what bugs me about the radio thing is that it doesn't seem to lend itself to the contextual advertising they are good at, it would have to be more 'just ads' as opposed to contextual.
Or maybe they're after the ad sales force they get with this purchase more than a means to get in the medium itself.

Look at the link! (4, Interesting)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498220)

Look at the link on the submitter:

http://www.playfullyclever.com/ [playfullyclever.com]

And then you'll see articles like this one:

"The Problem With Slashdot
Everyone seems to be bitching about Slashdot these days. Whether it's dupes, digg farming, **Beatles-Beatles spam, or even yours truly, everyone has something to whine about. The problem is that none of these things are really the problem (oops, that's a thinker, don't hurt yourself slashbots)...."

So it seems this guy is working in the spirit of http://anti-slash.org/ [anti-slash.org] -- but even sneakier -- the guy gets a dupe posted, where it links to his "how to fix Slashdot" webpage.

What a PLAYFULLY CLEVER bastard!

Re:Look at the link! (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498252)

The email from CmdrTaco to ScuttleMonkey should be an interesting read.

Dan East

Re:Look at the link! (0, Redundant)

Black.Shuck (704538) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498287)

Mod parent redundant. Taco has already addressed this:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/10/144024 0 [slashdot.org]

Please stay on-topic. :)

Re:Look at the link! (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498310)

Mod parent redundant. Taco has already addressed this:

Mod Grandparent Up. Taco posted a story on story selection. No one has actually gotten around to doing anything about it yet. This is the second virtual dupe by ScuttleMonkey in under 48 hours.

Please stay on-topic. :)
With dupes this blantant, the dupe is the topic. Anyone who mods "dupe" posts as offtopic, clearly doesn't understand how this site functions.

Re:Look at the link! (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498399)

What about "redundant"?
One "it's a dupe" top-level post and discussion attached to it is enough. This article got about 15 or so "it's a dupe" posts. THESE are really annoying dupes!

Re:Look at the link! (1, Flamebait)

Black.Shuck (704538) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498552)

Yes, this sites' obvious function is to create as much drama as possible about "dupes" and submitter-links in order to drown out the genuinely useful, insightful posts from people who - horror of horrors - might not have actually heard about the story yet, regardless of how many times it has been "duped."

Helping with /.'s signal-to-noise ratio is fine by me. I don't mind links to the orignally submitted story because I can swot-up on the old discussion. I would prefer it if there was a "dupe" button that allowed users to post links to the original stories. At least then we can forbid "dupe" posts from entering the main discussion.

I don't think I'm alone in saying: "I don't give a flying crap about your Dupes/Links/Beatles/Scuttle drama." When the discussion that gets modded to the top has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, I find *that* more of a reason to avoid /. than any number of dupes.

I just want to read the good posts by the informed readers who haven't seen the story yet, and just one or two links to the original discussions if it is a dupe.

Mod parent up! (1)

eSavior (767078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498732)

Damn out of mod points. ;(

Re:Look at the link! (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498815)

I don't think I'm alone in saying: "I don't give a flying crap about your Dupes/Links/Beatles/Scuttle drama." When the discussion that gets modded to the top has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, I find *that* more of a reason to avoid /. than any number of dupes.

So you care more about the symptoms than the disease? People are posting these comments for a reason.

Realise: The Dupe Is The Topic.

I just want to read the good posts by the informed readers who haven't seen the story yet, and just one or two links to the original discussions if it is a dupe.

The previous story was posted yesterday. If people want to comment about it, then they can do that in that story's page. Not this one's. This story page is for comments about the dupe, otherwise we'll all just be repeating everything that was said in the other story.

I for one, will be more interested in fresher comments concerning the dupe than stale repeats of what I read yesterday.

Re:Look at the link! (1)

Black.Shuck (704538) | more than 8 years ago | (#14499924)

People are posting these comments for a reason.

More reason than to perpetuate the drama and keep the infamous Beatles/Monkey/Random-Poster in the limelight for as long as possible? Email the editors please, and keep the soap-opera out of the comments.

The previous story was posted yesterday.

Meaning it was off the front-page today. Meaning those who did not read /. yesterday probably have not yet heard of the story. Meaning that now we can aquire fresh feedback and alternate perspectives on the same topic, as well as digest the information from yesterdays posting. Meaning there will be lots of "stale repeats" in the comments, but since you already know the story is a dupe from yesterday you will know to avoid reading it, yes?

I for one, will be more interested in fresher comments concerning the dupe than stale repeats of what I read yesterday.

Oops. Obviously not. So you clicked-through to a dupe in order to read comments on the fact that yes, it is indeed a dupe? You want to deliberately infuriate yourself about it? Sounds like Internet masochism to me.

If you genuinely don't want to see dupes or want to see them handled better, just email the editors with your concerns or write something up in your journal -- it really doesn't help the *current* discussion to keep hammering on about how it's a dupe and the end of the /. world is nigh because it was already posted 24 hours ago.

I find it pretty absurd for someone to actively contribute to the amount of noise at /. and for them to have no problem with that, considering they are arguing against it. And look, you've got *me* doing it too.

Re:Look at the link! (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14500084)

If you genuinely don't want to see dupes or want to see them handled better, just email the editors with your concerns or write something up in your journal -- it really doesn't help the *current* discussion to keep hammering on about how it's a dupe and the end of the /. world is nigh because it was already posted 24 hours ago.

Why email the editors? Their inboxes are already full enough. Better to call the dupe on the story page. It's more effective, and more appropriate. The *current* discussion is the dupe. The original story is the place for all so called ontopic comments.

I find it pretty absurd for someone to actively contribute to the amount of noise at /. and for them to have no problem with that, considering they are arguing against it.

Comments on duping are not noise. In the dupe, they are the signal. It's part of what this site is. In a sense, the entire dupe article is noise in the daily Slashdot signal, noise which dupe whistleblowers try to discourage, seemingly to no avail.

This isn't some kind of hackneyed drama or soap opera, conjured to drive the thread offtopic. This is valid critisism, with an intent to make this site better. If you think that somehow ignoring dupes will make this site better you're sorely mistaken.

Re:Look at the link! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498601)

The answer to dupes and all the crap that's going on Slashdot is pretty simple...DO-NOT-POST. When they see their stats go down the toilet and their traffic down AND it hurts their bottom line ($), THEN and only THEN, they will take care of us.

Re:Look at the link! (1)

JourneymanMereel (191114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498821)

Ya, but this guy has an absolutely brilliant idea.... I'll sum it up for you. Are you ready? He suggests that we should use mod points the way they were intended to be used [slashdot.org] !

Re:Look at the link! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498986)

The link was removed :)

Re:Look at the link! (2, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14499124)

And then, as if by magic, the link disappeared, with nary a word from the editors.

Editors, it's your site. You can do whatever you like with the submissions, and I can certainly understand you removing that link now that it's been brought to your attention.

However, at the time of my writing this, the only comment rated at +5 is the one I'm replying to, commenting on the link. Surely it's only polite to update the article summary to add something about having removed the link? Otherwise putko starts to look a bit silly...

they're arguing quite well for their detractors... (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14501266)

Honestly, I've just come to accept the dupes and such pretty much. And I don't think they're in danger of bringing down the site or some such nonesense.

But removing commentary from your detractors is a pretty big turnoff, especially when they've just shown a good lesson of how they are probably right.

FIRST DUPE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498221)

NT

Never mind...

Integration of AdSense in radio (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498224)

Last time tried that with magazines, but I swear all the links I clicked on were broken.

What's all the hubbubb? (2, Insightful)

Jonathan.Sidego (924602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498234)

One post letting everyone know this is a duplicate is enough.

What's the big deal with duplicates anyhow? If someone didn't see it yesterday, they'll see it now, and if someone _did_ see it yesterday; they don't have to RTFA, ya know?

Re:What's all the hubbubb? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498319)

One post letting everyone know this is a duplicate is enough.

The complete failure of the editors to address this problem, despite dozens of such posts every time it happens, would seem to indicate otherwise.

Re:What's all the hubbubb? (3, Insightful)

bhiestand (157373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498365)

What's the big deal with duplicates anyhow? If someone didn't see it yesterday, they'll see it now, and if someone _did_ see it yesterday; they don't have to RTFA, ya know?

Good point. Why does the Los Angeles Times put all that effort into writing a NEW newspaper every day? They should just change the date. If somebody has already read the articles, they can just skip them. If they missed them, then they can go ahead and read it! It's like a second chance. Forever!

Re:What's all the hubbubb? (1)

Jonathan.Sidego (924602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498400)

Groundhog Day was a good movie, man!

Re:What's all the hubbubb? (1)

bhiestand (157373) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498420)

Groundhog Day was a good movie, man!

Good? I'd say excellent :). But at least each day was different, and many were radically different...

Answers (1)

Fiachra06 (945611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498244)

Yesterday I was asking why people get so worked up over dupes and today I experienced a glimmer of rage on the sight of this story especially since it is still in the older suff section on the front page. Went away quickly though. What are you people doing to me?

AdWords - not AdSense (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498245)

From the press release: "In the future, Google plans to integrate dMarc technology into the Google AdWords platform, creating a new radio ad distribution channel for Google advertisers."

For the advertisers, it makes perfect sense: they can deliver the ads across the web, on print and radio. Expect TV support within 2007.

Re:AdWords - not AdSense (1)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498795)

Not only that, but think of applying Adwords to Podcasting? There are lots of podcasters out there looking for a decent business model to support their programming or whatever you call it. Google could be positioning themselves to do just that.

Not *Truely* A Dupe (2, Informative)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498294)

To be fair, yesterday's story [slashdot.org] linked to press reports on Google's purchase. Today's links are to Google's own press release on the story.

Nonetheless, a simple "following up on yesterday's story", would do a lot to increase confidence in the editors. However, doing that would require ScuttleMonkey to actually read the front page.

Sorry if that sounds a little snide but I am seriously trying to hold back the flames of fury here. I wish 'Taco would hurry up with the next Slashback.

WOW! Google are doing well (1)

johnnywkelley3 (753394) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498317)

They've expanded into the same market twice now, looks like radio advertising is where its at right now for google to invest in two such companies in less than a day

Announcement: (1)

I WILL KICK YOUR ASS (263791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498375)

I am proud to announce that New Orleans will be a CHOCOLATE CITY once again!!! It's chocolate because God wants it to be chocolate. You can't have it any other way.

PHP Dupe Detector? (0, Redundant)

Spikeman56 (543509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498398)

Couldn't someone at Slashdot just whip up a fast Dupe Detector that gives a warning if the articles share too many words or links? I don't think it'd be that hard. Maybe once SATs are done I could attempt, unless someone beats me to it!

Re:PHP Dupe Detector? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498936)

I would imagine it's easier writing using Perl, just a guess based on Slashcode...

Google should hire some graphic designers (1)

mikkom (714956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498459)

I have googles ads on some sites. The biggest problem with them is that they are ugly and cannot be integrated into site layout and I guess some people don't even read them because of the ugly layout.

Another thing I would like to see is what the actual profit share percentage is but that's another story...

Google To Buy Radio Advertising Firm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498472)

M3rk1n_Muffl3y writes "According to the BBC Google is buying US radio advertising firm dMarc Broadcasting for an upfront payment of $102m (£58m), rising to a possible $1.14bn by 2009. Interestingly it comes soon after Robert X. Cringely's prediction that Google will soon expand into targetted TV adverts. It looks we are finally beginning to see Google's transition to mainstream media."

Community (2, Insightful)

Jonathan.Sidego (924602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498474)

Maybe we can get the Slash guys to incorporate a feature that would let the registered userbase label a submission a duplicate.
Once a certain number of users have done that, the two articles in question will be merged, one will be removed or something.

Something must be done, cuz I'm tired of all this complaining everytime it happens, but nothing gets done.

Doing something like this will keep Slashdot relevant, in an age where 2.0 rules the Net.

Let's do something! Yesterday!

Re:Community (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498585)

Once a certain number of users have done that, the two articles in question will be merged, one will be removed or something.

Simplest would just be to leave it live, but take it off the front page. Any threads people were invested in could continue as they received notifications of replies they get a link to the page to read/respond.

Re:Community (1)

Jonathan.Sidego (924602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498668)

That sounds like a good idea.

Wow...Google's not as smart as I thought (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498481)

I can't believe Google got suckered into buying the same company twice in two days.

And I don't know how dMarc thinks they're going to get away with that, what with all the press attention the two sales have received.

bkd

NOT a dupe (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14498493)

To the people who complain that this is a dupe: This is not a dupe. the last one was about google planning to buy, this one is about actually signing the agreement.

Adsense (2, Interesting)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498562)

While this is certainly news, I'm surprised that the integration of Adsense comes as a shock to anyone. Since I highly doubt we'll see "Go to Google for more information. Type Aitch Tee Tee Pee colon slash slash double you double you double you dot gee oh oh gee el ee dot see oh em.", the only other 'content' to deliver by radio is ads supplied by customers for their product, which would require some kind of integration with their existing system (Adsense). My crystal ball doesn't tell me if this will be a successful experiment, but I highly doubt Google will use it to advertise Google.

And "Pee colon slash" sounds pretty awful, anyways. ;)

Re:Adsense (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498734)

I would imagine that google can help radio adverts by contextualizing them.

If your advert is one amongst hundreds in the adsense basket (ie, Sleepy Happy Docs Good night tablets) it makes no sense in your advert being playing at 8pm on a Saturday night whilst the heavy dance music is playing, but what if during a talkin show at 3pm somebody is talking about lack of sleep, your advert would be PERFECT there, and more likely to gain sales.
Sure, you could just target your advert for the middle of the night, but its better to add context.

What's the strategy (1)

kukickface (675936) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498579)

I realize this strengthens Google's position in a market it has been in for a while, but given the other recent developments in Google's business, what is the strategy here? Is this some type of hyper-diversification?

For future reference (1)

JaJ_D (652372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498657)

Mr Monkey, or can I call you Scuttle, this [secretgeek.net] may be of use in the future.

Jaj

It's not a dupe! (1)

n6kuy (172098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498663)

It's a new Slashdot feature that allows you comment AND moderate on the same topic.

And so it begins... (2, Insightful)

JFlex (763276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498756)

Google is taking over. They are an innovative company that's the size of Microsoft with the brilliance of Apple. Just think about it, they're dipping their hands in to everything: email, maps, advertising, media, etc. There's no stopping them. Not that I'm complaining or anything, Google's services are a part of my everyday life and I don't see that changing anytime in the near future.

Satellite Radio for the Masses .... (1)

kthejoker (931838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14498929)

I highly recommend the book Crossing the Chasm for the tech lovers around. To apply its lessons to this articel ... Satellite radio has ended its "early adopter" phase, and with the recent signing of Howard Stern (and no doubt future signings of other larger-than-life radio celebs) have probably made a successful leap over the Chasm of Uncertainty. In short, it is here to stay at least for the time being, but the amount of future success it will attain is dependent on how many more adopters it can acquire. Since satellite radio has a "premium" product (ad-free narrowly-tailored radio), it charges a premium price, which turns it into something of a luxury item, and one many people will simply do without. But ... If Satellite radio were to offer an ad-supported "free" version of their same great narrowly-tailored radio product, then the radio industry might see a sudden surge in satellite radio (a natural progression anyway, given the general decline of FM and nearly complete abandonment of AM radio...) I imagine Google has more insight than I do, but I wouldn't be surprised if satellite radio companies begin offering ad-supported systems for cheap ( if not outright free), with dMarc (and thus Google) reaping the benefits of that system. In addition, it's a win-win for the Siriuses and XMs of the world, because their narrowly-tailored radio stations will require narrowly-tailored ads - something Adsense is itself well-tailored towards.

Note to Google: (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14499075)

Just because you have the money doesn't mean you need to buy the entire advertising firm just to run a few advertisements!

Hummmm, google! (1)

sebastinator (945718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14500207)

Hi, it is very interesting to follow the google expansion. They make products for everything now: Google talk, google earth, google video, google search, google picasa and more and more. Where does it will stop??? Since many years they never stop to creates good products that kill the competitors right away! Have you ever try Google earth and compare this one with equivalent softwares? It is better that's it that's all! Same thing for Google searh!!! What to thnik about that? I have no idea but i think that google begins to be too bigger! They should concentrate their energies!!! Of course we should use Google Radio but where did it will lead us??? Just the future will give us the response! Thanks a lot, Thank you for visiting my web site and posting your comments on the forum!

oh hum... more radio deregulation (1)

SammyB (903607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14500323)

I had hoped the radio landscape was already saturated by mega-billion dollar corporations, sadly Google is joining them. I never thought I would say Clear Channel and Google in the same sentence.

tr0Ll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14501675)

in ratio of 5 7o do and doing what
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>