When we moved to free access just over 12 months ago, we naively thought that advertising revenue (from Google Ads) would be fairly lucrative. By going free-access we reasoned (rightly) that traffic would grow. This extra traffic, we thought, would ensure a dependable income. In September, TRIP was searched over 500,000 times, our income from Google ads was pitiful!
I’ve just searched on TRIP for asthma and the adverts returned (in a prominent position) were:
- 10 Diets rules that work (from http://www.fatloss4idiots.com/)
- Asthma (http://www.healthline.com/)
- Evidence Based Medicine (ebmg.wiley.com)
- Asthma (allergy.healthvilliage.com)
Hardly inspiring! The majority of the adverts are aimed at general internet users – as opposed to our predominantly clinician user-base.
It’s not just TRIP that struggle to make revenue from adverts. Take the BMJ site, one of the most viewed clinical sites on the web. Most of the adverts on their homepage is highlighting other BMJ products e.g. BMJ master classes, BMJ learning.
What I don’t understand and I hope someone can explain, is why there aren’t any better solutions!
On one hand we have pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets desperate to get their message out to clinicians. On the other hand we have a significant number of sites, mainly used by clinicians, keen to boost their income and happy(ish) to accept adverts.
Why the post? I’m hoping someone will read it, knock some heads together and devise a decent system that will relive the pharma companies of some of their advertising monies and in return allow them to place their message so that it’s viewed by clinicians. I can only see this as a ‘win win’.