Dunks response to those ads

On July 5th people on other Liverpool FC sites were reporting that k*optalk was again running S*n advertisements on the homepage and did so for most of the day.  At the time no one on k*ptalk appeared to ask the question as to why these ads were being shown, or if they did the posts were being deleted very quickly. 

Now if this was the first time it had happened you could offer a little sympathy for the dumbass that runs the site.  However for three reasons this is not possible:

  1. It’s not the first time it’s happened (https://koptalkinsider.wordpress.com/5-the-s-oldhams-arse/).
  2. You have to subscribe to the adverts in the first place and
  3. Because it’s Dunk and he is a S*n loving c*nt.

I know this subject has already been covered, but I happened to go to the “official k*ptalk blog” today and read yesterday’s entry which is in response to someone asking about the adverts.

Taken from his blog:

People often ask us if it’s true that we support The Sun newspaper because their ads have appeared on our website in the past. No we don’t support The Sun newspaper but yes their ads have appeared on our site without our prior knowledge (not exactly true it it?). However K*pTalk has NEVER profited from any form of commercial partnership or link-up with the rag because there has never been one in the first place. Neither has The S*n ever approached us. (Answer this Dunk have you ever purchased a copy of The S*n?)

The only people that try to use the innocent lives of the 96 Reds who died at Hillsborough are those associated to one or two Liverpool FC websites spawned from K*pTalk by former members who were banned (Again a little bit of a lie there Dunk, any way I thought they banned themselves) from our site forums. They try to claim that we would knowingly carry such ads (not a claim). Well here’s a support ticket we received in July 2007 and with it our response that should explain (k*ptalk style) how ad agencies deliver their campaigns on sites such as K*pTalk.

Shame on those who use the 96 lives for their own agenda by deliberately misleading others.

Dear Editor

I recently visited your website and was dismayed to see a full-colour advert for The S*n newspaper at the top of the homepage. I know for a fact that this isn’t a Google Ad and have enquired to several web advertising agencies who have told me that certain websites can be blocked with permission of the owner of the site.

Why did an advertisement for that paper that has caused so much hurt and distress to the people of Liverpool and Liverpool Football Club over the years with their lies and slander being displayed on what is meant to be a Liverpool FC website?

If it were to be revealed to the club or the supporters there would be great uproar and a lot of anger directed towards the website which I’m sure you and your members would not want.

I have taken a screenshot of the image on your website and would gladly send you a copy of it.

I await your response

JM

Hi Jamie

Please could you provide the link to the page where you say this ad appeared and also inform us when this was? [ED: As we’re carrying mainly Blue Square ads at the moment, no other ads could appear on 99.99% of the site so we’re a little confused here as to where this person claims such an ad appeared, hence the question].

If we work with an ad agency they provide us with special code to add to our pages. This code is never changed, it basically allows the advertising agency to add campaigns as and when they choose automatically (at their end). Because they deal with thousands of companies, they do not inform us when they add a new campaign.

As we are not made aware of new campaigns when they add them, the only way we can disable such offending ads is if we spot them ourselves or if someone notifies us. We can then block that particular campaign through the control panel of the advertising agency. This will stop that campaign from displaying. For example it may be called S*n1 – S*n1 would then be blocked but if they returned say 2 months later with a new campaign called S*n2, then S*n2 would appear until it was blocked.

Google ads are easier to block as you can block out domain names before ads appear e.g. you could add www.theS*n.co.uk to a blocked list before such an ad appears.

Only a fool would believe that we would knowingly run adverts for The S*n newspaper. They can slip through the net but when notified or discovered by ourselves they would be disabled, as they have been in the past.

If it were “revealed to supporters” we’d tell them exactly the same as we’ve just told you. It’s not a conspiracy but a fact of how the ad agencies we work with operate. Anyone with common sense would understand that, those that didn’t we wouldn’t be concerned about.

We hope this helps answer your question.

K*PTALK.COM

OK, so again Dunk is claiming that it happened by accident and it was out of his control although I’m sure we’ve heard that line before.  Unfortunately I like many others don’t believe this; a company would never add campaigns as and when they choose automatically.  If that was the case they could add anything including links to competitors sites, can you imagine the hassle that would cause. 

I’ll be the first to admit that I have no idea how online advertising works.  However looking around on the web sites of a few providers of this service seems to show that you have to subscribe to the individual campaign which has been backed up previously by other users and website owners comments and in total contradiction to what Dunk has said.

These are taken from two of the bigger Ad provider’s websites:

ValueClick Media:

Q: How can I be sure that all the ads ValueClick Media will run on my site are appropriate?

A: All the ads that are available to run across your website will appear in your account. Once there, you have the option to include or exclude any of the campaigns of existing advertisers. We have provided tools to automatically filter out and/or notify you of any campaigns that do not match your requirements.

Commission Junction:

Publishers
Apply to join advertisers’ programs, get immediate access to their entire inventory of links and begin placing their offers on your Web sites, in e-mail campaigns, or in search listings. In addition, strategic advice and featured weekly advertiser offers are available through CJU Online, our comprehensive online resource. Click here to join our unparalleled network of publishers and learn more about our commitment to the long-term success of top-performing publishers.

Dunk we know you read the blog, so maybe you can answer this, why did you advertise The S*n on your website (again)?  And on a personal note how did the house move go?

Advertisements

19 Responses to “Dunks response to those ads”

  1. Stu Says:

    You know what, its times like this I wish I had access to kopdisgrace. I would simply ask Dunc why on earth he doesnt can the ads, seeing as how he already takes a sub fee so then “we the user” get “the best they can get”….I mean, he only does all this for us right?

    If all the other liverpool sites can operate without sun ads and with a fraction of the amount of advertising that koptalk has, and dont charge us for the privelidge of being on the site – why cant he when his running costs are already more than covered by the thousands of new subscribers he gets each year.

    We all know its because hes a conman, and we all know its because hes going to get whats coming to him. He wont say that though.

  2. Redneck Says:

    What a prat!

    As you have probably discovered for yourself, it’s very easy and simple to keep in control of your adverts. Google ads work slightly different but even they can be controlled with comparitive ease.

    Dunks a s*n loving prick and the walls are slowly crumbling around him looooooooool.

    Cock!

  3. chapeau du soleil Says:

    “If all the other liverpool sites can operate without sun ads and with a fraction of the amount of advertising that koptalk has, and dont charge us for the privelidge of being on the site – why cant he ”

    Because he is a liar and a greedy conman

  4. DAVE the BRAVE Says:

    To be fair I’ve seen ads for the S*n on the Liverpool Post/Echo website and I’m sure they wouldn’t knowingly advertise it either. It seems that sometimes they can slip through (although I’m not expert on the matter).

  5. Didihno Says:

    I agree this is pure sepeculation until you contact the add company and ask them how their service works. More to the point you could contact them and ask about having advertisements on the blog (hell the readership is huge) and ask for the details, oh i don’t know hows about the very same package kraptalk gets?

    That will let you know if this is by choice or just an occasional embarrassment.

    My personal theory is that there is a shred of truth in dunk excuse but the simple fact is that he refuses to ban certain adds purely becase he is a: too lazy, and b: is too greedy.

    Oh, and finally, I thought I read that he has claimed repeatedly that Kraptalk does not take any advertising money in? (or handouts)

  6. Raftastic Says:

    We all know Dunk lies through his fooking crooked gnashers and each and everytime he opens his mouth he digs that little deeper.
    Out of intrest have you all read the anti shitpage link on his site,he goes on about how bad we all are for attacking his familly (cannot back that up though) goes on to say how both him and his rent boy put themselves out there so are fair game but then not 3 words later he puts his daughter Rocky outhere hence making by his logic her fair game also.

    He’s also written it in the third person.

  7. ZedLepplin Says:

    The recent articles are well written, informative and almost (dare I say) pleasant enough, but it seems that any “action” to bring Oldham “down” has taken a back seat – in my humble opinion.

    The articles are of a really good standard, but it’s nothing new really. We know Oldham is a S*n loving shit-bag, we know he’ll rant at anyone given half a chance, and we know he’ll rip you off given a chance, as previous articles have shown.

    So, my question is this:

    When will the blog get back to actively closing Oldham and his site down?

  8. Fatwatcher Says:

    Dunk shows again he hates this blog more than he ‘loves’ Liverpool. Saw an article on his site that shed a bad light on our player, thought it a bit strange I hadn’t heard it elsewhere. So I used good old Google News to search for it. Using google news you find it’s only on one site other than Kop-talk. Yes the fat liverpool hating bastard has done it again. Screen shots are here http://i15.tinypic.com/4xxk0lf.png and here http://i16.tinypic.com/6gv5szs.png.

    Anyone who is still sticking up for the fat slimestone should be ashamed.

  9. Flagpole Corner Says:

    does he dream up these stories himself? sounds like something the s*n would write.

  10. Lynchyred Says:

    Brilliant Fatwatcher, another accusation it’s difficult to deny. Yes, any of these could be argued as being an innocent mistake but put them all together and you’ll realise that no other site works this way and no true Liverpool supporter would behave this way. He sickens me and I agree with ZedLepplin above when he asks how the blog is going to take him down. It’s no good us all not being on Kocktalk, that’s obvious but we really do need to stop him from conning reds and spreading lies in the name of our club.

  11. Chunka Says:

    I’d still like to know what the crack was with Rupert

  12. Flagpole Corner Says:

    it doesn’t matter what the crack was with rupert. as insider said, he served the site well and has gone on to pursue his own projects. speculating won’t do any good.

  13. LouDeKross Says:

    Its ‘craic’ not ‘crack’ and the craic with Rupert is Rupert is gone.

    The King is dead long live the King.

    Its time to concentrate all efforts and start taking this con-man down, preferably before the start of this season.

  14. Didihno Says:

    II asked me to email him if I wanted to know what the craic was with Rupert.
    After much thought I decided I didn’t want to know, its over now and it was visibly damaging the blog.

    If the full story comes out in the future well and good, if it doesn’t I’m not losing sleep.

  15. Stu Says:

    I wonder if anyone who reads this and reads these comments would like to ash dunc the following, in such a way not to get themselves banned (we know it can be done):

    – why did you not tell us of any of the small or major transfers this season before they happend?
    – how did you not know about rhe new marketing execs appointment?

    I would like to see him squirm his way around that.

  16. ZedLepplin Says:

    Didihno:
    I emailed II to ask about Rupert, and never got a reply.

  17. Jabba Says:

    Hate to say this – but knowing in detail how these things work I can ‘understand’ how it can happen. We automatically ban ads for that paper on our google ads on our forum – but only last week that newspaper started ads for a different website (part of their group) and we had to quickly add this to the banned list.

    With regards Valueclick who I use on a site at work – they do provide a long list of campaigns which you can ‘opt out of’ but again these are updated daily and unless you were logging in constantly a situation could arise where ads are shown that you don’t want.

    But I’m not defending his site – in fact the amount of disgust about this matter – if he had any scruples he would probably have removed the association to Valueclick.

    And anyway – what’s the advertising for if he has ‘thousands’ of members paying £30? Greed. Pure Greed.

  18. An Observer Says:

    Ads are fugly anyway, simple answer is don’t use them.

  19. Flagpole Corner Says:

    Jabba, I agree that this can happen occasionally but this one in particular is appearing too much on kraptalk too often for it to be a mistake. I’ve been on the site to see it for myself and 7 times out of 10 advertisements for that rag have appeared on it. It’s not just the odd one that’s slipping through the net now, it’s obvious to myself and several others what Oldham’s game is.

    Good job he’s not in charge of the country borders otherwise we’d be over-run with asylum seekers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: