<p>Chapter 12 case study</p><p>Intelligent Online Ads or an Insult to Readers and Reporters?</p><p>The forbes.com business website quietly introduced something called “IntelliTXT” into its stories in summer 2004.i IntelliTXT was a system that automatically made hyperlinks out of every word in forbes.com reporters’ stories that related to one of the website’s advertisers, and the link went directly to that advertiser’s site or ad. Not many readers complained about IntelliTXT, but the business publication’s reporters sure did. They resented having their words used as launching pads for ads, especially when they had no idea which words were safe and which would backfire on them. IntelliTXT amounted to product placements in online news stories, they said. Readers were free to bypass the links, but discerning ones had to wonder whether forbes.com’s word choices were based more on reportage or revenue. Indeed, IntelliTXT made money for forbes.com. Its advertisers enjoyed click-through rates 24 times higher than the usual number of clicks on banner ads, according to Doug Stevenson, the chief executive officer of Vibrant Media, the developer of IntelliTXT. Sometimes, however, the automatic hyperlinks were insensitive and/or inaccurate; e.g., linking to a sale on fence gates at the mention of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.</p><p>How ethical is the use of IntelliTXT and similar automatic hyperlink ads within the text of online news stories? Is this online text-based technology any better or worse than product placements in movies and TV shows? Aren’t they better than drop-down ads that obscure your initial view of the news story for up to 30 seconds—or the ads that precede videos on YouTube.com and hulu.com? After all, readers can skim right past the IntelliTXT links and ads without clicking on them, and new media need revenue sources to support their journalism and replace the revenue losses due to shrinking audiences for print and broadcast media.</p><p>© Taylor & Francis 2011 i Giuffo, John. (2005, March/April). “Ad-monishment at forbes.com; a newsroom says no to a dodgy new ad scheme.” Columbia Journalism Review, 19.</p>