Whale Oil advertising onslaught explained

Cam Slater has defended and explained the advertising onslaught on Backchat at Whale Oil. First he issued a ‘please explain’ for a subsequently deleted comment:

Please explain why you should remain as a commenter when you have just seriously undermined the only revenue I have and while you are at it please explain to Pete why it was you who cost him his job.

What you just did was worse than what the leftwing bastards tried to do by attacking advertisers directly.

I’m not even sure why I am even bothering giving you the chance to explain.

Interesting that for something apparently serious he gets a warning and a chance to explain, that’s different to recent trigger happy moderation.

Pete on the offence:

There is a big difference between what people choose to do and having readers tell other readers how to (effectively) reduce our income and make the blog less financially viable. We’re not dumb – we know people do what they do – but to have our own readers teach others is really a step too far.

Hints that the use of Adblock was suggested.

Cam explained the bottom line.

OK…for the benefit of other readers, Greg I gave you a chance because you have been with the blog for a very very long time.

But also for the benefit of the readers I really need to have ads continue as I have a $60,000 legal bill for injuncting the media over Dirty Politics.

I could have run a Give a Little campaign like Dirty Nicky, but it is my belief that Give a Little is not for that.

Things are tight right now…and it doesn’t help either that the Human Rights Review Tribunal is seeking to try to fine me $50,000, the largest ever award…for breaching a ratbags privacy. This is the same crowd who likes to protect the privacy of filthy pedophiles.

Reacting to financial pressure.

Another comment on it:

Pete I’ve noticed the increased advertising its at the point of EXTREME OVER KILL.
I mean 6 adverts on one page it’s becoming more spam adverts than content in some post.
Give it a bit of balance eh?

Pete acknowledges the risks:

1/ Ads are nothing to do with me.
2/ I’ve handed on your observation
3/ I’m aware there is work going on by an external company to improve our financial performance. I imagine this needs to be sustainable. If putting 100 ads on a page gets us more money today, that also means we have no income next month as everyone will run away.
4/ I suspect we need to find the sweet spot
5/ All this is me theorising – This area of the blog is totally outside my interest / resposnibility

If the drive to finance projects and accumulated legal issues drives away readers too much advertising will be counter productive.

As expected the site statistics from October were down significantly after the election surge – The month that was (monthly blog ranking post), as were all the major blogs.

UPDATE: and in a new post this morning Slater reveals much more and asks for donations or a legal fighting fund, and claims there have been deliberate attempts to pressure him into killing himself: I’m alive and have something to share

There certainly seems to be far more to “Dirty Politics” than is publicly known.

27 Comments

  1. Mike C

     /  November 2, 2014

    LOL. What a hypocrite Slater is !!!

    Only a few short months ago, the Whale Blog ads were discussed in either General Debate or Backchat, and Slater wrote a comment saying if readers wanted to use ad-block, then that was their choice.

    What was the story regarding Pete Belt losing his job ???

    • How he worded that was odd. I think it may have been suggesting that if adverts were blocked the site would lose revenue and couldn’t afford to employ Pete.

      • Mike C

         /  November 2, 2014

        So Slater was trying to make readers feel guilty for using ad-block, by pulling out the “Poor Pete might become unemployed if you block the ads” card. LOL.

        I have always thought Pete Belt worked for Cam Slater for love and prestige 🙂

        • If he was on commission and paid per ban he will have done pretty well for a while.

        • Alloytoo

           /  November 2, 2014

          um……explaining is still losing.

          While I have every sympathy regarding the illegal hacking of emails and Hagar’s subsequent attempt at a smear job (using the same), I have zero sympathy if revenues are down due to fewer visits.

          Some of that is certainly due to post election hangover, the rest falls equally on Slater’s shoulders for ego rants regarding JK and Pete’s for banning anybody who dared disagree.

          Slater’s brand of asshatery is amusing and tolerable with a right of reply, I can’t be bothered with echo chambers

          • I agree with this. While I agree with a need to exp;ose what was behind “Dirty Politics” there’s a fair bit of irony involved in Slater’s self promotions, on things like “We need to stand up to.. bullies and challenge them” and his many sermons on free speech.
            I challenged him and have be

            I’ve challenged his bullying and been banned from speaking freely on Whale Oil.

            I wonder how many people who have been banned may have considered contributing to his legal fund?

            • Mike C

               /  November 2, 2014

              I used to donate $60 a month to Slater and his Whale blog.

              Slaters expenses, such as the $60,000 legal bill and the $50,000 defamation fine, were created by his own personal choices and decision making.

              The Whale readers are not responsible for his mistakes and current financial woes.

              Is Slater just a clever con man ???

            • Karen

               /  November 2, 2014

              That’s a really good point. It would take a lot of clicks on ads to equal what Budgie and Mike used to donate alone.

              I’m really interested in how this has all come about?

            • Sponge

               /  November 2, 2014

              I used to fire $40 a month at them as well. The WO blog has jumped the shark in the last few months though and I have cancelled the payment.

              All of the comments are now just sycophantic fan boy stuff. Until the mad banning of all and sundry took place the comments were entertaining but now they are just bland “me too” stuff. I still have a look a couple of times a day but cannot be bothered to contribute any more.

            • kathy maddren

               /  November 2, 2014

              Hi Spongie 🙂

              Firstly, I want to say sorry for my response to a comment you wrote on here a few days ago.

              It sounded like you were promoting Cam Slater as some sort of golden boy, which did not go down well with me.

              The Whale blog used to be such a great humorous debating chamber.

              But its become an empty vessel.

              Nothing but arse lickers and C4M’s fake user names in there now, Spongie.

            • Sponge

               /  November 2, 2014

              Hi Kathy,

              No problem. I agree that there is little debate worth reading there any more. Pete made a big point of saying “we don’t need you as readers” while going berserk banning people and as a result the whole community feel there has gone.

            • kathy maddren

               /  November 2, 2014

              The only people commenting on the Whale these days are names like Cameron Slater (CAM) and Cows Me (C4M).

              Catch my drift Spongie 🙂

  2. Budgieboy

     /  November 2, 2014

    When I first read Petes 5 points on the advertising it stuck me as someone putting a bit of distance between himself and something that could lead to a drop in numbers. Not quite the team player I’d want on my side but I’m probably not the most balanced when it comes to prince Pete. I wish the silly ass could get a grip on how much damage he’s done with his arrogance, he’s not WO and never will be. He has the authority but not the mana and he’s hurt that blog. I’d wager that 95% of the people banned from that place totally AGREE with the moderation rules but the way they are selectively and abitrarliy enforced by Pete has split the community over there, and all at a time when WO needs support like never before.

    When I was banned my first and instant reaction was to open up another tab, click on my banks link and within 30 seconds I’d canceled my weekly contribution. It was only ten dollars a week but I would have basically forgotten about it and never stopped it. To be fair I sweated that for a bit as I’d only started 3 weeks earlier and still totally believed in the work WO does (I still do) but really, how much of a plonker would you have to be to give money to a place you are banned from?

    I thought of Cameron personally and particularly Spanishbride but couldn’t see a way around it, Pete had already written posts mocking people for emailing WO direct (groveling I think he might have called it) but to be honest, I wouldn’t do that for the very same reason that WO would never do it to me if the boot was on the other foot.

    It’s a prick of a situation because, make no mistake, Cam Slatter is one of the very few effective forces against the left in this country. There are times when it looks like the world is going mad and the PC nuttiness is taking over and thats when he’s the guy who gives a voice to our concerns, he’s the guy that takes all the crap to blunt the insideous creep of socialism and I really think he’s made a difference in doing that.

    There are a couple of good posts over on WO today, specifically at 8am regarding the legal costs and the pressure they are putting on the family. If you haven’t had a look I urge you to and if you can spare a few dollars for the cause then please flick across whatever you can. I’m going to open that tab again and click that bank link again and do my bit, banned or not he needs the help on this one and I think we should give it.

    • I’ve already linked to that post but here it is again: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/11/im-alive-something-share/
      (putting links in here is fine).

      I questioned my ban but won’t grovel in any of the so called amnesties.

      • Alloytoo

         /  November 2, 2014

        I questioned my ban (politely) and didn’t get the courtesy of a reply.

        ah well to quote Budgie:

        “how much of a plonker would you have to be to give money to a place you are banned from?”

        Just as well, Pete’s self indulgent passenger seat posts were being to grate.

    • kathy maddren

       /  November 2, 2014

      Just went over the Whale to read that 8am post, as you suggested Budgie.

      What Cam Slater wrote in that post made my stomach turn.

      It was pure and simple propoganda and emotional blackmail.

      What sort of an arsehole uses his dead Mum and his birthday as a front and his excuse for blatant revenue gathering?

      • Budgieboy

         /  November 2, 2014

        Ouch Kathy.

        I can see why you might think that way but I dont see it like that. I’m thinking he’s under a truck load of pressure – in fact he’s been under a ton of pressure for months now and for him to pen a post like that won’t have been done lightly. I think he’s feeling pretty raw – I’d be raw too if I’d gone through a fraction of what he’s been through so I’m cutting him some slack. The appeal is not for him (or even to pay prince Pete) it’s for the legal fight that needs to be fought for people like you and me.

        You’re a good person Kathy and I know you’re a bit pissed over how things have been lately but we’re all still on the same side even if there is a tosser or two on our side.

        • Mike C

           /  November 2, 2014

          Not just one or two tossers, Budgie.

          There are at least three of them:-
          1. Cam (Idiot) Slater
          2. Pete (MonkeyMan) Belt
          3. Travis (TriggerHappy) Poulson

          They got too big for their britches.

          Plus, there is the matter of the more than $1,000,000 loan that Cam&Co borrowed from someone several months ago, to enable him to invest in Kim DotComs ex friends Freed Media project.

          Cam Slater has been lying by omission to readers of the Whale.

      • Goldie

         /  November 2, 2014

        I thought the same thing Kathy.
        Then I remembered that this is Cam Slater, and he wears his emotions on his sleeve. He is a seething mess of emotions at the best of time – and that manic energy is why he writes such a bloody infuriating and interesting blog – it is his birthday in the year his beloved Mum died and facing a massive legal bill, so I’d cut him some slack.

        • kathy maddren

           /  November 2, 2014

          Heaps of people have mental issues.

          The Whales default position has always been to have his Wife and Pete to write posts and comments that defend Slater, using his Bi Polar disorder as a weapon against readers.

          To be Frank … I am over it Goldie.

    • benny

       /  November 3, 2014

      Isn’t WO pleas for money bludging?
      A hand out?
      oh dear time to reap what he has sown.

  3. There’s discussion on this at Kiwiblog GD too and there’s a lot of Kiwibloggers who have also been banned from Whale Oil. It almost seems like they were trying to purge anyone active on blogs.

    • Mike C

       /  November 2, 2014

      Grumpy wrote a comment here a couple of weeks ago, Pete.

      He said something about Slaters use of heaps of fake user names.

      I am inclined to think that the reason for all the bans, was to create a “Whale Utopia” type of environment.

      Only “Insiders” can write comments.

      No “Outsiders” … like us Pete 🙂

    • kathy maddren

       /  November 2, 2014

      I wasnt active on any other blogs aside from Whale Oil.

      Something deeper and darker is going on over at Cam&Co.

      • Budgieboy

         /  November 2, 2014

        Maybe we all need to go have a couple of drinks one day as the tragically sad bunch of misfits we now are and I’m sure we’ll solve all the problems of the world. (Sadly I’m Chch so probably a long way away from most of you)

        But, here’s a couple of even more tragic points.

        1, We are (as good middle of the road centre right kiwis) scrapping amongst ourselves.

        2, We are (most of us) banned from Whaleoil. I mean jeepers how the hell do we explain that to the average citizen Jo? Seriously, most of my mates mock the crap out of me for being a whaleoil supporter so how the hell do i explain that I’m too dodgy for that site?

        Honestly, I told a good mate of mine recently that I was banned and he pissed himself laughing, he assumed that I had taken frothing lunacy to a whole new level.

        Really?

        Yeah nah.

        I hope the comments above are – how do I say this ? – a little overstated and emotionally driven as it would pain me if the thoughts above are true, having said that drinking booze with you misfits appeals greatly.

        Peye G, how do we make that happen?

        • kathy maddren

           /  November 3, 2014

          “How the hell do I explain that I am too dodgy for that site”. LOL.

          Next time I am down visiting family in your fine city, I’ll happily share a drink or ten with you and any of the other misfits BB 🙂

        • Mike C

           /  November 3, 2014

          For the record, Budgie, I am only a misfit at the Whale apparently. Five bannings from there within less than three months has to be some sort of record. LOL.