<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Oxymoronical &#187; adverts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/tag/adverts/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com</link>
	<description>Spouting nonsense from the depths of my spare time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:58:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Should AMO allow adverts for pay-for add-ons?</title>
		<link>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2008/06/Should-AMO-allow-adverts-for-pay-for-add-ons</link>
		<comments>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2008/06/Should-AMO-allow-adverts-for-pay-for-add-ons#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mossop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[addons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adverts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oxymoronical.com/?p=65</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Assuming you agree that paying for some add-ons is ok then you have to ask what we do about people using AMO as a marketing platform. This is a tough question since we risk devaluing AMO as a website if it just gets filled up with adverts. I don&#8217;t believe that there is an official [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assuming you agree that paying for some add-ons is ok then you have to ask what we do about people using AMO as a marketing platform. This is a tough question since we risk devaluing AMO as a website if it just gets filled up with adverts. I don&#8217;t believe that there is an official policy on this. It is such a rare issue right now that maybe one isn&#8217;t necessary, but here are are my thoughts on what such a policy might say.</p>
<p>In order to even advertise a pay for add-on the developer must have uploaded a real add-on. If this add-on is just junk, i.e. doesn&#8217;t really do anything and is just a means for getting a page onto AMO, then it should be removed. I have seen add-ons like that (that weren&#8217;t advertising anything) getting removed as a matter of course anyway so I think this is already working.</p>
<p>The next question is whether the add-on is a basic version of the premium add-on. If so then I think it is totally fair that the developer can include text in the page to note that a pay for version is available elsewhere. I&#8217;m less enamoured with the idea of including screenshots of the pay-for version on AMO. I think regardless of how well labelled they are there is a strong risk of confusing the user there.</p>
<p>Trial versions of add-ons pose a question. Should AMO be allowing add-ons on the site that will intentionally stop working after a period of time, or that list features in menus that only pop up a message about needing to pay to activate? I don&#8217;t think so. I believe a user should be safe to download add-ons from AMO that are whole products and they can count on to continue to work.</p>
<p>If an add-on on AMO is unrelated to a premium version by the same author then more care has to be taken with advertising different add-ons on the same page. I don&#8217;t see a problem with a short note at the bottom mentioning that other add-ons from the author are also available elsewhere, but I don&#8217;t think mentioning what the other add-ons are or what they do is a good idea.</p>
<p>Overall I think short notes are the way forward, anything where the add-on is more of an advert than an add-on in its own right is something that needs to be carefully looked at.</p>
<p>Update: A couple of commenters have raised the question of whether AMO should just include pay for add-ons in its listing, something that I completely failed to consider. I&#8217;m not sure which side I am on on that yet. I think if handled correctly it could work, but maybe I&#8217;ll think on it and do a follow up post on the subject.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2008/06/Should-AMO-allow-adverts-for-pay-for-add-ons/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

