Do I Write About Don Allen for the Money?

Donald Allen raised an interesting theory in the comments of an earlier post, where he suggests that the reason I write about him is for blogging profits. As I understand it, he seems to think that I’m profiting off of him due to the amazing amount of traffic this blog receives when I blog about him.

Donald Allen
March 9th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
I can’t believe your actually trying to get traffic to your blog this way – how funny, but brilliant.

I hope you make some money

While I do run ads on The Deets, Don is delusional if he thinks the reason I write about him is for the money I make from it. Here is some data to back up that statement:

AdSense Earnings by Day from Don Allen Posts

The above chart is a daily breakdown of the revenue generated by the ads that have run on the pages where I’ve talked about Don Allen. If you study that closely, you may notice a huge spike on Feb 22nd, followed by a return to its normal pattern. That was a special day for me. That was the day that I made 64 cents off the content I’ve written about Don Allen. And, that was the ONLY day that I’ve made money off the blog posts I’ve written about Don Allen.

Here is another way to look at the data:

Revenue Per Don Allen Related Blog Post

That is a post by post breakdown of the revenue generated from the posts I’ve written about Don. One person clicked on one ad on one story, which generated 63 cents. And the ad impressions in aggregate have made me a penny off of Poopgate.

When I write about how ridiculous Don Allen is being when he threatens local reporters, I’m not doing it for the money. Instead, I’m taking a moment to say, in public, that Don Allen is being ridiculous when he threatens local reporters.

And, just in case things aren’t crystal clear already, I’m donating the 64 cents I’ve earned to the TC Daily Planet (following Erica’s lead). However, since a 64 cent donation would be largely eaten up by merchant fees, I’ve nudged that up 100X:

Donation of my Don Allen Ad Revenue to the TC Daily Planet

If I’ve followed this chain of events correctly, I think it breaks down something like this:

  1. Sheila Regan, writing for the TC Daily Planet, writes a story that mentions Don Allen.
  2. Don Allen Threatens to sue them if they run it.
  3. TC Daily Planet runs the story anyway. They don’t get sued by Don. The earth keeps spinning.
  4. Sheila Regan, writing for the TC Daily Planet, covers the Jerry Moore v. John Hoff trial, where Don Allen testifies.
  5. Don Allen threatens Sheila again.
  6. TC Daily Planet runs the story anyway. They don’t get sued by Don. The earth keeps spinning.
  7. I write about Don Allens ridiculous ongoing threats against journalists.
  8. Don Allen accuses me of profiting off this type of content.
  9. I demonstrate that I don’t.
  10. Rather than buying a Supermom’s chocolate chip cookie with my blogging profits, I donate 100X the amount to the TC Daily Planet.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

10 thoughts on “Do I Write About Don Allen for the Money?”

  1. Its normal pattern, not it’s. Possessive, not contraction. Remember the possessive form of it doesn’t have an apostrophe, to avoid confusion with the contraction.

    “Instead I’m a moment to say…” What does that mean?

    Lastly, um…

    Well, I better just keep my mouth shut but there are things you say here in some of these points which are INTENSELY INTERESTING, but because I’m still being sued right now I don’t dare say anything…

  2. The man likes Jordan Hawkman, but disclaims.

    Give Allen credit. He does not put his Jordan Hawkman disclaimer in fine print, he keeps it in regular type, even with some bolding.

    Why might the Jordon Hawkman folks decline putting the credibility of their names behind their effort?

    Presumably there is credibility. Huh?

    They must be shy and overly modest. They don’t want to overwhelm with their name credibility, but rely only on the quality of what they say.

    In learning of the trial and background, as I guess many have who have not known of the neighborhood power plays previously, I find Don Allen one of the more interesting people involved. Interesting in his own way, as he is, as he acts.

  3. In my lengthy experience with AdSense, it pays great dividends for restaurants and not much else. Thankfully the restaurants, especially those with a decent online advertising budget, have the money to buy up ads targeting their keywords.

    People wanting to pay for ads being shown about NE Mpls Drama Bloggers: probably 0.

  4. So what ad did Don click when he left this posting?

    I’m seeing a nice ad for Charles Schwab financial services…I’m not thinking that is the one…but some of those ads for ‘how to make money blogging’…seems a natural for him to click one of those.

  5. You might need that money. Hoff got found guilty with a $60,000 verdict. I’m not a big Don Allen fan, but the verdict and your negative comments about Don Allen pave the way for you to be the next defendant. Looks like opinions are not as protected as you thought.

  6. @Some guy, that was certainly an interesting verdict. I have a hard time believing that telling the truth about someone is justification for being sued. It seems like Jerry Moore might want to hold off on making plans for that money. As I mentioned earlier, it’s not clear to me why Moore sued Hoff at all. Wouldn’t the U of MN be the more appropriate target?

    When I met Don Allen on Monday in the hallway outside the Moore / Hoff trial, he told me that he likes my blog and that I can write whatever I’d like about him. While I have no way of knowing what he meant by that, I got the impression that he was saying that I was being hard, but fair, in my criticisms of him. He also mentioned that the reason that he continues to post a blatant lie on his blog (Poopgate) is because he feels that Eric Johnson has done the same to him. He’s also admitted earlier this week to David Brauer that he lies to his readers by posting fake comments under fake names to blogs. Quite a character.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.