Should We Allow Advertising on .gov websites?
As reported by NextGov, yesterday there was a column in Wall Street Journal stating that .gov websites should accept advertisements.
In the column, he suggested that IRS could make between $50-100 million in advertising alone from their website.
In an interesting pilot study, WA Department of Transportation is working on a pilot of including advertising in their 410 million annual page views - really fascinating study and use case
At one level, we are already doing a lot of advertising on gov't property
-Bus stops - full of ads
-Inside bus & subway - full of ads
-TSA bins - have Zappos ads in about 10 major airports
Budgets are tight at all levels and may be a way to increase revenue.
So what do you think, should we allow advertising on .gov websites?
Are their cases where you think it's okay?
Certain types of sponsorships?
Tags: government advertising
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by GovLoop on -
Interesting convo on Twitter on the topic
RT @GovInTrenches: @govloop @govfresh I also hate the idea of ads on .govs. Imagine @stephenathome advertising for his superpac on FCC site.
#dotgovads RT @GovInTrenches: @govfresh 3 acceptable .gov ads 1) Other .govs 2) Red Cross Donations 3) gov events - not much more
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Krzmarzick on -
So what are those little Facebook, Twitter and YouTube icons but mini ads?
How about every time a Foresee survey pops up with their logo?
Got other examples like that where there are de facto ads already?
-
Permalink Reply by Denise Hill on -
Interesting study. Would the revenue from placement of ads go directly to the Treasury?
The study mentions a couple of times that, to stay within GSA requirements on use of .gov URL's, they redirect to .com sites for pages that contain add placements. Even if agencies pilot use of placing ads on .com URL's, the next version of the study could expand on:
- prioritization and rotation of ads for entities that wish to place ads
- how an agency would support ad placement without appearing to favor one entity over another (i.e. appearance of an unfair advantage or endorsement)
- pricing of ads
- Risk Management strategy; a strategy for avoidance of spending more than ad revenue due to the unintended increase of cost (i.e. increased telecommunications cost due to increased web site traffic) (See statement "In some scenarios, WSDOT might actually lose money...")
- FTE cost amortized over the anticipated lifetime of the hire ("at least six Full Time Equivalent employees (FTEs) including four sales staff, one manager, and one information technology staff person")
- Acquisition Strategy
-
Permalink Reply by GovLoop on
-
Good question on where the revenue goes - if going straight to Treasury, less incentive for agencies.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on -
I think this is pretty simple, under current rules and laws I don't believe this would be allowed at the federal level. Remember, the Federal Government isn't here to "make money" and those organizations that "make money" do so via charges for services the government provides in order to suppliment appropriations and are allowed to do so via their establishing law. (e.g., GSA, Post Office, etc.) They basically are like non-profits for lack of a better example. Furthermore, regulations do not allow the federal government to "support" a specific brand, retailer, item, etc. Though I suppose you could open up the gates on advertising to everyone, to avoid violation of this clause you would have to accept ALL advertising submitted in order to not appear in support of a specific brand, etc.
Sure, the Fed needs more money. (apparently anyway..despite the fact we should be examining the size and purpose of our government before we keep spending money as quickly as we can print it...) But this may be a bridge too far in order to remain within the legal confines, ethical confines, and regulatory requirements currently in place (yes..all, except for ethical confines, can technically be changed..but at what "cost?")
NOTE: on the facebook, youtube, etc logos on federal sites it has been questioned and debated at length if this violates any of the above and results are mixed based on different agency/departmental legal reviews. The issue of a "free service" is debated almost daily, though most agree that due to its "open" availability this is not as much an issue as an organization attempting to give something away they normally charge for.
-
Permalink Reply by GovLoop on
-
Some thoughts from my FB link to this post:
- Charlie Borrero Nope.8 hours ago ·
Jeffrey Abbott No. It degrades the perceived quality of the information. It would be better to ask for crowd-funding instead (since it is serving the people).7 hours ago ·
Joy Gatewood Fulton It raises the question, too, of why not allow naming rights of government buildings for profit?57 minutes ago ·
Alesia Booth I would love to be able to run government-specific ads - for other .govs or for government contractor jobs.
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Peteritas on -
Here's the question since it's the government the ad choices more than likely would have to be non discriminatory, meaning as long as they were willing to pay the price ANYONE could advertise. That could include anything from smear campaigns to porn sites... not sure that's something we want to deal with.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on
-
This is exactly part of my point. In order to remain in the clear on ethical issues as "advertising" as a government, we will have to accept adverts from ALL sources. It's a bit of a pandora's box problem..
-
Permalink Reply by Kirsten Burgard on -
As another commenter noted, Government isn't in "business" to make money. It's economics 101, no literally, I had to take that this year and it was one of the topics.
I think The Wall Street Journal is being short sighted in it's suggestion. For companies with the means to advertise, a link or mini ad on the screen gives an "impression" and often that impression isn't just that there's an ad on the page, but that the government agency's page where that ad appears endorses or recommends the particular service of product.
Take for instance HUD. Who'd advertise there? Mortgage brokers, lenders, banks, credit unions, etc... And HUD wouldn't be able to control who those advertisers are once an ad is placed. Would they be sorting ads to remove anyone who might be on the prohibited list? Would they remove ads to lenders under investigation? What about USDA or VA? They also make home loans. Would a farmer or soldier know that the ads are just that, an ad, or would they perceive a connection between the lender and the agency? What about the Mine Safety Administration? Who'd be the ads? Coal industries? Perhaps coal mines looking to hire, perhaps even unsafe mines?
With Zappos at TSA, I don't have an issue. They aren't selling a TSA service and couldn't be construed as a potential conflict. It's merchandise and TSA doesn't sell anything.
Most of our agency sites are specific to the constituents served. Allowing advertisements that will connect the dots for our audience puts advertisers at an unfair advantage.
-
Permalink Reply by GovLoop on
-
All good points.
@govfresh on Twitter said his acceptable ads on .gov websites would be - 3 acceptable .gov ads 1) Other .govs 2) Red Cross Donations 3) gov events - not much more
Like those?
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on
-
I love this idea, cross advertising to get the word out on government services is a GREAT idea.
Announcements
Today's Top 10
© 2011 Created by GovLoop.
