We'd be interested in hearing what you all think about this image. Is it appropriate for Outsports? The guys who run Island House are great guys, and they have long been supporters of Outsports. But, before accepting this image, we figured we'd ask you all your thoughts.

Island House image

There doesn't appear to be anything distasteful about it. Sure, it is risque but no more so than the other ads I've seen on here, in my opinion. I like it.

It seems pretty tame to me. I say use it.

That's an issue??

That's really tame.

Nothing wrong with it and certainly not anything we all haven't see before

I’m always very disappointed to open Outsports at work and have each page show so much skin and half naked guys. Everyone thinks I’m looking at porn sites at work.

But with that said, it’s not any worse than the ads already used. Might as well use it.

No problem with it...........I'm in.........

actually, with the gauzy soft focus, it's probably more tasteful than some the of the ads I have to hide off the side of my screen at work.

i totally appreciate you asking, Cyd.

now, as a business person, i'm hoping you get an extra fee for all the folks that clicked and stared at that image since it's way more focussed attention a side banner usually gets.

I can't believe a guy pulling down his Jockey's to scratch his ass is going to attract customers.

"Come to Island House! We wash our linen once a week whether they need it or not!"

I vote against it, not that it really matters.

Hey! You're a self-proclaimed caveman! God only knows what you've been scratching! love ya!

Ditto.......

Do they have an alternate ad that you can post? I'd vote against it.

I think I stayed that about 30 years ago. My friend Joe from my home town of Cincinnati was the 'pool boy'.

I'm really old.

TRL

AMAZING! If this was a sports board for heterosexual men,there would be no problem with big breasted women who have thongs up their asses and I'm sure that would be just to advertise some beer!!
Since I don't think there is a sports board for straight women,I cannot presume anything as far as they are concerned.I understand the need for discretion but I don't think that's what's fueling any protests.Everyone seems to be so uptight about being stereotyped that they've become paranoid about the possibility of someone thinking that they might have a sex drive! I'm sure the "usual suspects" will chime in with their usual verbal attacks but so be it.

While I'm not a fan of all the skin and sexed-up ads I've seen on Outsports in the past, I don't really have any objections to this one.

As someone who's just recently taken a full time copywriting job again, having not worked in an office for five years, I don't open Outsports at work right now...I finally understand what some of those debates were before about ads, etc. and whether or not to view the site at work.

The problem with this ad is not so much whether it's appropriate or not (i don't think it is) but that it's just so lame. Is that really the best they could do in representing what I presume is their passion, their business? Yes, I'm in advertising so I have a strong opinion about content, etc., and this ad tells me that someone is taking the easy route. It's not imaginative, it's not clever and it tells me nothing about their property except that there's nudity and easy sleaze. Well, that's not hard to find. And it also tells me that they consider the lowest common denominator the best way to appeal to their potential guests. Hmmph!

Appropriateness aside, the advertisers should try harder, and outsports should continue to consider themselves above such nonsense.

And I want to be clear, I don't have a problem with ads and skin, but does every gay site have to include that? Especially when they don't have anything to do with sex? Of course as I write I know how silly and naive that sounds...sex sells everything, and it is what it is...no big deal.

While I don't think it's any worse than any other ad running on the site, yes maybe it is a bit... unprofessional or distracting in a professional business work environment.

Would that all your main ads could be from Fortune 500 companies and Sports specific retailers, etc! But that's not the world we live in I guess.

There used to be an old canard that if you wanted to be gay and work you went to live in SF, but if you wanted to work and be gay you moved to NY.

I suppose it depends on whether you want the focus to be on a 'sports site for gay men' or a 'gay men's sports site'.

Personally I don't give a damn, but am I aware of sensitive noses around whom I would not open your site with some of its ads?

Yes. Particularly in a business environment.

Hope it helps.

R

Let's not kid ourselves. It doesn't. I've been on this site over six years, but I stopped feeling vested a while ago.

If you want to surf at work, get Firefox with Adblock and Filterset G.


I'm against risque ads in general for what's supposedly a sports site but like others have said, it's all about the $$.

The saddest part about this is that each and every gay company or companies trying to reach the gay market feel that the only way to reach us is by showing naked men. I guess they think most of us think with the head below our belts. But it's no wonder given the stories about stealing a guy's jockstrap and sniffing it and other such nonsense. Yeah we all like to look at good looking men. But I am more likely to respond to a well crafted, funny ad.

Why aren't we worthy of a little more creativity? I realize we are a small minority but comapred to other marginalized groups we spend a much higher percentage of our disposable incomes. But so few ad agencies are able to try anything but to stimualate our cocks rather than our brains.

Personally the ads don't impact me one way or the other since I am only online at home. But I clearly understand why the people who don't like them and those who didn't like them the last time this debate surfaced and support them 110%. I know if I worked in a professional office environment, I wouldn't be at all comfortable opening Outsports at work and I have been comfortably out for 20 years.

I wish the ad agencies who sell these ads would read more of some of the intelligent and informed discussions in the Tennis, Football, Basketball and Real Life forums. It seems like they think all we're about is the Hot Jock Talk and TV/Movie forums.

Wow. What a cynical perspective. And completely untrue. We asked for people's opinions because 1) you all have had issues with ads in the past and we wanted your perspective and 2) we are on the fence on this one. Some people are OK with it, some aren't. At the end of the day, we'll listen to all the perspectives and make a decision. We HAVE rejected several ads that we felt crossed the line after LISTENING to you all.

George, I agree with you. I wish these companies would stop advertising with sex. However, this one is actually relatively defensible - it's a clothing-optional inn. We've asked the advertiser to use ads with a less risque photo, but they said they rent rooms when they use photos like this one; they don't when they use photos of men with clothes on.

And that's the issue at hand. We see how many people click on the ads; when there is a hot shirtless guy, the ad gets literally four or five times the clicks as when there isn't. These companies are using these tactics because they're effective. Readers click on the ads that so many say they don't like. And I imagine they won't stop anytime soon.

You asked for an opinion, and you got it. If it seems cynical, so be it.

I have no interest in being part of an "Amen Chorus." When you ask for opinions you should be pepared to get the gamut of them. If you're not it makes the original request seen like just so much posturing.

I work in a small office and we're very relaxed. They all know I write sometimes for Outsports and lots of times I forget myself and walk away from my desk with the site open and scantily clad men all over my computer. So, the ads in and of themselves aren't a concern for me personally, although I understand the debate (that rages on).

I don't personally understand why this ad is any different from the other ads, though, and what about it merited special consideration versus all the other half-naked dudes. It's not the ass, because there was an Andrew Christian ad with some guy pulling the other guy's underwear down. To me, this ad seems no more or less "offensive" than any of the other ads here at Outsports.

my memory is hazy, but i think when the ads on the right first appeared there was quite an outcry over their perceived sleaziness, and the response was "it's our site and we've made a decision. if you don't like it, you may leave." at least one prominent lesbian poster chose to do so.

in my opinion, it IS "their" site, and they can do whatever they want with it. but i'm guessing that perhaps the whole episode LAST time is one of the things that contributed to munson man's not feeling "vested". am i wrong?

incidentally, i really agree with bryan's post earlier.

As a guy working in the marketing industry, i have to doubt that many, if any, of those ads are coming from agencies. they all look done "in-house" to me. or at least by a friend of a friend. but some of the cheapest marketing tactics can be effective.

Incidentally, thanks for the tip golfer 23, I'll look into Adblocker.

Our response was not that imperious, but at the end we decided that as a business we needed the revenue the Blogads brought in. We did consider what people had to say.

Also, we decided not to run the ad in question on this thread.

Do you guys feel like asking about this specific ad revealed anything new? And did it have any real impact on your decision? I presume it's a constant tug between what's smart commerce-wise and taste-wise?

I think you should run the ad, but only in the “Stealing Jockstraps” thread.

But mostly I agree with George and others who question the ad itself; how it represents “the lifestyle” (attitude and sexual desire), but really only serves to reinforce false stereotypes. I’ve been a gay man for about 40 years and have yet to strike that particular pose. In fact, most gay ads are of zero interest to me because I’m neither a shaved 19 year-old, nor have I ever lusted after one. The only “ads” on Outsports that get my attention are the real people in the Members Area. Dear Advertisers: Real men turn me on. And they make me click.

Anyways, do Outsports members really click on these ads, anyway? Are these flesh/fantasy ads reaching their target market here?

I support Outsports for at least trying to keep it out of my face. Kudos J&C.

Yes, it did.

Again, this particular ad was for a clothing-optional inn. I think the creative was certainly justified and representative of the company.

However, we felt, after your input, that it crossed the line.

hmmm....just noticed the ad in question off to the right......

LOL...did ya change your minds? I see the Island House ad in rotation. (Not that I care either way.)

...and as bluey stated...I glance to the right and there it is....

eddie stated that if this was a sports site for straight guys there'd be big boobs and thongs everywhere, and he is right....because that is what straight guys want to see next to Peyton Mannings stats.

Now, the whole debate with these ads on this site is, alot of people in this country and world still equate gay men with only thinking about sex with every guy they see and being too "faggy" to even know or care what an RBI is. And when you come to a message board that is filled with ads for clothing optional hot spots, and ads for naked magazines, etc...It only feeds the stereotype that you initially tried to debunk in the beginning.

Cyd and Jim, I would imagine that you must get other offers for ads other than the stereotypical ones, right?

The service started running it, despite the fact that we hadn't OK'd it yet. We've stopped it from running. It was not our intention to have it run.

Chill-Trick, we certainly don't decline any mainstream ads, except some gambling ads. The only things we've rejected, other than some gambling ads, have been for overtly sexual content.

I actually don't see a problem with the ad... I'd personally be happy with ads with just guys playing sports or even shirtless guys... anything less is what makes it difficult to view a site like this at work (keep in mind, I'd never go on this site at work haha)

I think this ad is much better than the one where the day is naked in a pool...haven't seen that ad in a while, but that was just brutal in my opinion.

Thanks for asking for input Jim and Cyd... keep up the great work - it's a kick ass site!

AGREED!! You will never be able to please everyone,regardless!

Oh my god, I just saw the new Aussie bum ad, and I lost any credibility in this discussion! Oh my lord...

I just clicked on four ads to deal with my reaction to Aussie bum...There ya go, that's the ticket...If you get annoyed, excited, intriqued or anything else in reaction to the ads, just click alot..it really works it out...

A guy pulling down his underwear and showing his crack. I think the ad is cute. It is cute at my home in the privacy of my home office but at work, no. I do not want anyone to walk in my office and see this ad. Even if it were for just a glimpse they would assume I was watching porn. That is why I block all ads on my work computer so I do not run into this situation. At home I enjoy them and click on them a lot hoping Jim and Cyd are getting some type of income for my clicks.

I thought the 'Find a Masseur' ad to be the one I object(ed?) to most strongly. I thought it really cheapened the site.

Hey TC,

I totally understand that concern. I had the same concern, too. But, it is a legitimate site. I scanned the ads and found one that talked about "release," and a couple weeks later that part of the ad had been removed. It made me comfortable with it, though I certainly do understand the sexual stigma attached with some massage.

i use firefox.

i don't see the ADS.

I use Firefox and see everthing. So, what's with the super imposed print?

Interesting to hear Cyd mention that when the ad shows skin the guest house would get 4-5 times the click through rate compared to tamer ads. I just came from the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association conference in Montreal last week - and at two separate marketing seminars we were told that ads running shirtless buff white guys are no longer effective. Younger people find them boring and older people indicated in surveys that they actually have a negative response because they don't - and can't - look like that anymore. At least that is what gay guys told marketers in their surveys.

Yet if those pics are still the ones still getting the most clicks - which as an advertiser is what you want to happen ...?????

Could be another case of people responding to surveys one way - yet their actual actions are different.

Or it could say something about the demographic of this board...

R

No, I think it says that those kinds of ads get the most clickthroughs on most any site. Example: The pro volleyball tour advertises on Outsports and also on mainstream sites. The photo they use for us is always of a shirtless male player with a hot bod. For the mainstream sites, it's a female player with a hot bod.

Someone's cranky.

They're full of crap. From the ads we've run on other sites, I can tell you that when we use hot shirtless white guys, our click-throughs can go up 10-fold as opposed to when we don't. Another publisher on whose blog Island West used to advertise said they noticed a jump in clickthroughs for Island West when they used a naked guy.

Third-party internet surveys have found our audience to be more black and more likely to be 35-54 than the average internet user. So, I don't know what you could divine from some increase clicks on hot naked guys other than the fact that our audience is mostly gay.

We might have to use shirtless chubby guys to prove that point!

use firefox with adblock and you won't see the annoying ads.