McConaughey has never looked as good as he did in his oneĀ Unsolved Mysteries reenactment. (Screenshotted from disc 1 of the incredible “Bizarre Murders” boxset)
McConaughey has never looked as good as he did in his oneĀ Unsolved Mysteries reenactment. (Screenshotted from disc 1 of the incredible “Bizarre Murders” boxset)
By my parent’s standards, I know a lot about the internet. By the internet’s standards, I know next to nothing, so this question is directed to anyone who thinks or reads about these things more often:
Often when a website posts something controversial (or maybe, ‘controversial’), a post that seems designed to provoke clicks and accumulate pageviews, people will tweet it with link redacted, or one person will tweet it and other people will tell that one person not to include the link so that people dont click on it, or people will tweet the link but tell people not to click on it, whatever, the logic being that your clicking the link will give the website traffic and thus revenue and thus encouragement.
So my questions start here: Since these posts, when they’re done well, easily accumulate five and even six figures of pageviews, how much does one’s reluctance to add an additional three really make difference? If you’re really serious about this cause, wouldn’t the more effective strategy be to target advertisers and explain to them that the traffic numbers they receive are wildly inflated? Do advertisers already know this? And how does the market for online advertising account for this?