« Programming My iPod |
Main
| Another Discovery »
Why Is Nick Denton So "Old School"?
I have a lot of respect for Nick. He's built a great media business in Gawker Media using blogs as the platform. Valleywag is one of my "must reads" every day. My girls tell me that Jezebel, Gawker's new women's gossip blog, is fantastic. If you don't read Lifehacker, you should. I could go on and on. Nick is a brilliant media mogul in the age of the Internet.
But he's got a few blind spots. He's stuck in the old media mindset at times. Take comments. He wouldn't have comments on his blogs for years. Didn't want to "sully them" with user generated comment. Now he's got comments, but they require registration. It's like Nick doesn't really want to be new media. He wants to be old media on a new media platform. Forget the conversation, I just want to talk to you and you should listen.
He showed his stripes again yesterday on Valleywag when he took a swipe at his competitor Federated Media (and me by association) in his critique of the "People Ready" campaign that Microsoft is running on this blog and many other Federated blogs.
Nick says:
One would have thought that tech opinion-leaders as influential as Om Malik and Paul Kedrosky would ration their credibility more carefully, and reserve it for companies and products for which they felt real enthusiasm.
Maybe we (Om, Paul, and the rest of us) were just excited to participate in an ad campaign that wasn't just mindless banners Nick. Maybe we wanted to try to bring "the conversation" into the banner. Maybe I really did mean this when I wrote it:
I am in the venture capital business which is all about building relationships
with people. And yet many venture firms aren’t “people ready”. That’s why
venture capitalists as a group have a reputation as being arrogant, aloof,
hard to reach, and hard to talk to. I’ve been struggling with how to build a
“people ready” venture capital firm for years. I learned the venture business
from some great people who taught me to always respond to every deal that
comes in, say no as quickly and nicely as possible, and be attentive and
gracious in every meeting. But even that is not enough. We’ve used blogging to
make ourselves and our business, Union Square Ventures, even more “people
ready”. And it’s been a success in more ways than I could have ever imagined.
Nick sent me an email yesterday asking about the campaign. I should have known something was up when I saw this subject line:
did you really write "people-ready" just to get Microsoft sponsorship?
I told him yes I did and that I didn't really think about it. It seemed like a neat idea and still does.
Bottom line is that I am all for any form of advertising that takes some risks, makes the medium a bit more interactive, extends the conversation.
Blogging doesn't play by traditional media rules. That's why it's great. Blog advertising shouldn't play by traditional media rules either. I am proud to be a participant in this campaign and think it makes me even more credible.
June 23, 2007 in Venture Capital and Technology | Permalink
Comments
Kudos for admitting you did it, but I have to say that the idea of overtly adapting one's content at the implict behest of an advertiser instinctively worries me. You're not in it for the money clearly, but aren't you laying yourself open to the charge that part of your editorial content has now become unannounced advertorial?
Posted by: John Dodds | Jun 23, 2007 7:15:15 AM
it's an ad banner John. not a post.
if i had been paid by blackberry for the "In Love With The Curve" post, well then yes, the line between editorial and advertising would be crossed.
but this is all about a banner ad. and most people understand what's in a banner is paid for.
fred
Posted by: fred wilson | Jun 23, 2007 7:51:00 AM
Fred - Will VW continue to remain in your 10 must read list ? Just curious.
Posted by: Amit Agarwal | Jun 23, 2007 8:30:07 AM
Amit,
I love Nick and Valleywag. He's just wrong about this topic.
Fred
Posted by: fred wilson | Jun 23, 2007 8:55:13 AM
Valleywag is brilliant and important and Nick Denton same, but Fred, Nick is a genius at picking fights to create great drama/copy -- and you just got brilliantly drawn in. This subject is ridiculous and a distraction and ireelevent. Don't waste your time.
Posted by: steve Kane | Jun 23, 2007 9:03:51 AM
Jezebel is a piece of trash and an insult to women. Be that as it may...
The people involved with this allowed their names and quotes to be used in a commercial campaign by a company that then places advertisements on their sites. This is the only way to look at this -- indirect or not, these are paid endorsements.
Doesn't matter who reported such, or what people do or don't think of Nick Denton. The ethics of this--coming from people who have criticized efforts such as PayPerPost, which pays a few books for some Mom and Pop blogger--is questionable.
Pretending this is some kind of 'new media' way of playing with advertising models assumes your readers are, bluntly, dumb as bricks.
Posted by: Shelley | Jun 23, 2007 9:16:07 AM
I like Fred and this blog because Fred is doing something a lot of people wouldn't do: he's talk about his choice openly.
I don't care about the action as much as I do the reasoning behind it. Everyone has a justification for why they do what they do, but very few people are willing to talk about it openly.
I know OM stopped running the ad, but Fred, did you stop running it too?
OM pulled the ad, and said basically he wouldn't do it again. I think his readers will be less appreciative of that explanation.
My guess is that Fred would do it again. For that I give Fred props because I believe his reasoning.
Posted by: Dhrumil | Jun 23, 2007 9:48:18 AM
Dhrumil -
I've asked Federated and Microsoft to get the campaign back up on this blog.
It's the weekend so it may not happen until Monday, but I am proud of my participation in the campaign, like what I wrote, and would like to see the campaign continue.
Fred
Posted by: fred wilson | Jun 23, 2007 10:04:34 AM
There was a time when I was the bad boy of the Ny tech blogging world... no more
Posted by: Charlie | Jun 23, 2007 11:08:54 AM
much kudos to nick denton.
since he has taken over at vwag he has done a huge service to those who follow the techie blogosphere by putting his bullshit detector out there above stroking egos or messaging influentials.
what fm and affiliates did appeared questionable so he called u guys out for it.
Posted by: phil | Jun 23, 2007 11:17:09 AM
The whole FM/Microsoft ads just feel very dirty and deceitful. When I read the ads on the FM page, the impression I got was that everyone on there was speaking because they believe Microsoft is people ready and you and everyone else on the page is in line with Microsoft's people ready and while not specifically mentioning it, it gives me the impression that Microsoft somehow helped everyone on that page get their businesses people ready.
So I really see no difference between that and your example of if Blackberry sponsoring your I Love The Curve post. It's not bringing conversation to anything it's telling me that you support Microsoft and Microsoft somehow makes your business "People Ready". So if I want my business to be people ready, then I should choose Microsoft.
Call me ignorant, but that was the first thing I thought reading all those blurbs on the FM page. So call it "I just wrote whatever for the sponsorship" but it really speaks more than that, unintentional or not.
And aside from that it also says something else about someone who will just write it for the sponsorship money. So now how do we discern the truth from "just writing for the sponsorship money".
Denton may be a little too blunt but he makes a very valid point.
And again, I'm not a high-profile, "A-List" New Media Blogger/Personality, so maybe I just don't get it.
Posted by: Tony | Jun 23, 2007 11:24:16 AM
Ummm - the more I read you and Mike Arrington about this the more uncomfortable I am with the Federated blog advertorial business.
Why aren't you guys getting this?
I think Shelley, above, has spoken for many though the fact your ad money here all goes to charity should give *you* immunity from blogger prosecution.
Posted by: Joe Duck | Jun 23, 2007 12:10:51 PM
I think this is the most absurd overreaction I've seen in the blog world in at least a few months. Almost every print advertisement you see in magazines has 1) a picture of a model or actor, 2) the name of the company, and 3) the slogan of the company. Oh my! It's almost as if the person in the ad is vouching for the company and their ad campaign! How dastardly!
Funny how all these bloggers are attacking this ad campaign as if they've never seen traditional media advertising before. Maybe it just shows these bloggers need to get out of their computer chairs more often and explore the real world.
Posted by: Mike Rundle | Jun 23, 2007 12:23:11 PM
The no-comments or comments-with-annoying-registration or comments-with-annoying-approval policies suck. They suck even more on Gawker because there's a lot of loose rumors and many personal attacks. Personal attacks are one thing, but not being allowed to defend yourself in the attack comments is another. Just as well, I guess. Ignore it.
Posted by: Max Kalehoff | Jun 23, 2007 12:27:52 PM
ok..if it is just banner ad sponsorship and you don't care about product then will you folks write a slogan for my new start up vouching its approach.. it is perfectly respectable and I will pay the same money as Microsoft..
Posted by: do the same for my company | Jun 23, 2007 12:30:18 PM
Fred,
I am a big fan, daily reader and relatively new commenter.
You state: "I am proud to be a participant in this campaign and think it makes me even more credible."
I get your defense of the campaign. It's basically the same line the other A-Listers are taking: "new media, new rules, etc."
Fine.
But do you honestly feel that pimping for Microsoft actually makes you "more credible?" I can assure you it does not.
Posted by: Cortland Coleman | Jun 23, 2007 12:31:26 PM
People who don't know the difference between an advertisement and a blog post are "dumb as bricks". The ads are clearly separated and marked as ads.
These advertising units are more conversational and relate personal experiences. I think that makes the ad more interesting.
The notion that Fred's integrity or opinion could be swayed by a simple banner ad is absolutely ridiculous. Fred writes about things he likes and doesn't like with equal zeal. No amount of advertising revenue would change that...and besides..he gives it all away to charity anyway.
You are the man, Fred.
Don Dodge (yes, I work for Microsoft, but I also take shots at Microsoft when they do someting dumb. Not the case here.)
Posted by: Don Dodge | Jun 23, 2007 12:35:52 PM
At the very least, I'm glad these conversations are happening. In fact, "I'm lovin it." I appreciate Fred's candor here, but have to agree with Shelley and Joe. Participation in this campaign, even transparently, has little to do with toying with new advertising models. Its just shilling, plain and simple.
Posted by: narnia | Jun 23, 2007 12:37:33 PM
While I don't think you've neccesarily done anything wrong my question to you is simply: why are you so excited to be a tool in Microsoft's cheesey ad campaign in the first place? Maybe I'm just being idealistic here but in the age of Buzz Marketing I think its sad that people are increasingly turned into walking advertisements and endorsements of other people's products. It's downright creepy.
"People Ready" is a lame manufactured term that means NOTHING. It's merely a vehichle for Microsoft to sell products and it's sad to see people who should know better so willingly compromise their message, and for what? To join a "conversation"? Call it a marketing campaign. It's totally manufactured, devoid of any real meaning and really quite lame.
I also fail to see what's "risky" or "interactive" about what is at the end of the day a simple endorsement.
Posted by: rob | Jun 23, 2007 12:37:45 PM
OK, I normally read this through a feed reader, so I have no idea if this is normal ad content.
Right now, on the right side, there's an ad with pictures via Buzzfeed listing the following:
Male Nipple Erections
Drunken Celebrities
Without Breasts, There is no Paradise
Celebrities Eating.
I'm sure it is there just for the revenue.
Posted by: Option Jay | Jun 23, 2007 12:39:10 PM
Mike Rundle: Huh? - you are right except for your first sentence = your conclusion.
The whole point here is that traditional advertising is a corruption of the conversation. That's no surprise and biz as usual, but it's not a good conversation, which is what people have come to expect from these guys who in turn have for the most part excoriated mom and pop bloggers for similar activity.
This reminds me of how Google keeps decreasing our ability to distinguish between ads and organic listings. That's fine by me but please get off the damn high horse of explaining how user-centric all this is. It's paid, old-school media advertorial nonsense.
Posted by: Joe Duck | Jun 23, 2007 12:41:55 PM
What Rob said, cheesy and lame...
Posted by: Ben Kleibold | Jun 23, 2007 12:45:14 PM
Doesn't Gawker own Gizmodo?
Isn't Gizmodo just one big iPhone and Apple ad without one shred of objectivity?
Nick's just a hypocritical shill for Apple ... or his company is anyway. Which makes him one.
Posted by: Bruce | Jun 23, 2007 1:04:13 PM
When we read a magazine, we expect paid endorsements.
When we read a blog, we do not. We expect "ad units".
Maybe we should think differently...
The power of a conversational advertisement model (and why it receives a premium) is that it is more powerful because it co-opts the popularity of the people sounding off within it.
Is this a terrible thing? Not really. Is it worthy of discussion, absolutely!
That's the only problem I have with those defending this campaign. They want to call it "nothing more" than people not understanding a new model of advertising. Or worse yet, another Nick Denton flame war (which it very well might be). Unfortunately, nowhere did any of these people take the time to explain this innovative new model to their readers before it was brought to light.
"Check out my new conversational ad piece! It's a creative new way of using conversational media to add value to otherwise boring advertising." If we had seen that, well, maybe Nick wouldn't have had fuel for his fire.
Fred, I love the blog...I think the ads should be back, and I respect the fact that you are sticking to your convictions. All that I ask is that everyone involved should not be so quick to see this conversation end.
The entire point of new media advertising is to create a system where sellers can promote their wares and buyers can purchase things that will actually provide them with value.
How we go about doing this is where we arrive at problems. What I want to see is bloggers who obviously are at the bleeding edge of this new media allow their readers some measure of transparency. It is the same thing so many of you have asked for with PPP (which I have nothing at all against).
Either way, like everything else this will blow over by Monday. Hopefully, this will serve its purpose and open up a point of conversation.
P.S. I have to say, you don't get enough props for donating your ad revenue to charity. Congrats.
Posted by: Steve S | Jun 23, 2007 1:08:12 PM
Are you personally endorsing Microsoft's ability to help you and your company build relationships? or are you just endorsing in general how important it is to build relationships?
Maybe I really did mean this when I wrote it.
My problem with the ads is that they seem to imply something other than what you wrote. There's a difference between the common usage of the phrase "people ready" and Microsoft's brand hijacking of that phrase. By using that phrase in a Microsoft ad, it implies that you personally endorse Microsoft's ability to help you and your company build relationships (if that's true, then my point is moot). But my impression is that you consider the ad an endorsement of the common usage of the phrase "people ready." - not of Microsoft's ability to help you do that.
If a CEO appeared in a TV commercial for Microsoft and said "We are a People Ready business." - everyone would understand that he is personally endorsing Microsoft's products. If he says the same thing at a dinner conversation, it doesn't mean the same thing. Whether you like it or not, the context is the same with these ads (as you point out 'it's an ad banner... not a post'). It seems like you were writing for your blog, but your words take on a different meaning when they appear in an ad.
I feel like these ads intentionally use that difference to imply something that you and the other bloggers did not intend. It's the reverse of the PayPerPost issue - it's deceptive to have unlabelled ads in a blog, but it's also deceptive to use the context of a blog post in an ad to imply endorsement.
Posted by: steve | Jun 23, 2007 1:09:24 PM
I remember seeing those ads, and the (not very consciously thought out) impression I had when I saw them was that they were quoting the bloggers from their regular line of work.
Posted by: Sridhar Vembu | Jun 23, 2007 1:35:03 PM
Is this campaign from Edelman PR's Me2Revolution team?
Posted by: paul | Jun 23, 2007 1:44:39 PM
I don't even know what "people ready" means, nor why Microsoft's products are more "people ready" than anyone else's. So much for an effective campaign.
The whole thing strikes me as a massively misguided branding attempt. Perhaps Microsoft should be spending their time and money improving Vista and less money on lame branding.
Posted by: fiat lux | Jun 23, 2007 2:28:59 PM
G'day, Fred!
Great post. Why should I give a bloomin' care if you decide to sell advertising on your site? As you say, it's all about finding the next type of online advertising - one that's efficient and directed to how people use the net. After all, on the net, there's no rules, there's just right.
Nick's shortsighted criticism of this practice is going to boomerang on him in the end. He's sitting at the top of his tower, completely ignoring the thunder from down under. This are changing, Nick, and you can't hang on to old-media notions of how to do business. If you do, you'll find yourself in cinnamon oblivion.
Me, I'm gonna go have nice chicken lunch with my lady, Alice Springs.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 23, 2007 2:50:14 PM
Nick is right, you are wrong.
This has nothing to do with "old media" and "new media". Having comments or not having comments does not make you one or the other. This post has shown that you fundamentally don't get new media in the first place. Neither this blog nor Denton's blogs are new media. This blog is a pamphlet from the 1770's done in real time. Gawker Media blogs are magazines done in real time. New medium, not new media.
Anyway, the MS campaign is cheesy, and you added nothing to any 'conversation'. Just because MS is a tech company does not mean you or they are doing anything new. You could just as easily be parroting any meaningless corporate slogan, how about "We'll leave the light on for you" and how it relates to VC (and Motel 6)? I'm sure you could've written a post about that too.
Posted by: Sally | Jun 23, 2007 3:10:45 PM
I'm afraid the whole 'blogging content corrupted by advertising' meme doesn't intrigue me as much as it does the many commenters above. What *does* interest me is your depiction in the original FM banner ad of your (sincere, I sense) efforts to make your VC firm an 'entrepreneur friendly' one (by, e.g., responding to every submission, saying no quickly and nicely, etc.).
Even if you're falling fall short of your goal in that regard, the mere stated intention would put you at the top of my list of potential VCs to seek funding from for my startup. Do you get entrepreneurs who seek you out specifically for that reason? Have any colleagues elsewhere in the VC realm ever questioned how your approach affects your returns? Have you ever been tempted to abandon your lofty goals in the face of such criticism?
Posted by: Dean Richardson | Jun 23, 2007 3:21:43 PM
I don't know who's right or wrong, but I know that if Fred, Michael, etc actually use Microsoft Outlook or any of the products in the Office Suite, they're both people ready (whatever that means) enough for me and Microsoft.
I don't know if Sally is right about Nick, but she's 100% right about new medium, not new media. The media is the written word and the way your blog is set up it's very easy to go straight down the middle, focus on the words and ignore everything else. It's good design.
P.S. does the Curve have wi-fi capabilities?
Posted by: Robert Seidman | Jun 23, 2007 3:24:01 PM
It was OK for Fred to participate in the campaign.
It was not OK for Matt Marshall, Om Malik or Arrington.
Here's why: Fred is not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be one. This blog is personal and, to a certain extent, in the persuit of his biz interests. But Marshall, Om and (to a slightly lesser extent) Arrington are journalists first and foremost. It's what they get paid to do. And journalists do not advertise any product they might in any way cover. It is an obvious conflict of interest.
"Old" media might be in trouble because of technology, but not because of the ethical code it developed. What a shame to see it discarded in the name of progress.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 23, 2007 4:14:40 PM
The ultimate end result of this is that I have no idea what this conversation-people-microsoft thing is trying to communicate. Congrats to the ad geniuses that have come up with yet another garbled message, and I now have a wary opinion of Microsoft and all the blogs (or should we say flogs) that participated in this confused campaign.
Posted by: Webomatica | Jun 23, 2007 4:28:35 PM
"And journalists do not advertise any product they might in any way cover."
Journalists with Google ads never cover Google?
PLEASE!!!!!
Posted by: Bruce | Jun 23, 2007 5:14:39 PM
Bruce,
I should have been more clear: Journalists do not appear in ads for companies they cover.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 23, 2007 5:55:49 PM
Don: you're telling us that Microsoft getting embroiled in a new blog payola campaign isn't... dumb?? What is it then?
How about organising "conversational advertising" for comments next? What do you mean, akismet would block that as comment spam?
Posted by: Juha | Jun 23, 2007 6:08:09 PM
In defense of Nick's comments... he doesn't let folks like me comment on Deadspin, and as a result, the comments are usually hilarious.
Posted by: rick | Jun 23, 2007 6:14:21 PM
Nick Denton is a mean spirited, fag, who uses his blogs to make personal attacks on people. He also takes money from people to write positive and negative stories. He's a complete fraud.
Posted by: Frankie Carbone | Jun 23, 2007 7:43:20 PM
You've let us down! First, You took money to produce content for an advertiser (basically, you lent them your voice). This is the same voice I have come to respect over the years through your blog. Second, you've taken the arrogant road here.
no more Fred Wilson blog for me unless you re-evaluate your stance! Good luck.
Posted by: NEAL | Jun 23, 2007 8:05:15 PM
Fred:
My initial reaction to the "People Ready" web page is that it's a collection of paid endorsements of Microsoft and its (transparently lame) new slogan. I think that's correct, however indirectly you're getting paid for the endorsement.
Which left me scratching my head. I couldn't figure out why you, of all people, would be shilling for Microsoft, of all companies. Of course you have the right, but it just doesn't seem like an obvious fit.
So I tried to figure out why you might have done this:
1) Money. You're probably the last person who needs the money, so scratch that one.
2) You really believe in it. To me, at least, the slogan "People Ready" is about as vapid and meaningless as technology marketing gets (right up there with Lucent's abortive slogan from the early days of the Internet bubble: "R/Evolution." Evidently they couldn't decide if they wanted to sell to ISPs or telecoms). I think you're smart enough to realize that endorsing a marketing slogan is tantamount to endorsing the markeing campaign behind it, and you would not spontaneously endorse Microsoft (though perhaps particular Microsoft products, but not the company in the abstract).
3) You didn't realize that your blurb would be presented as an endorsement of Microsoft. Again, I think you're smarter than this, but it's possible that some fast-talker sold you a bill of goods.
4) You honestly believe this is somehow different from a traditional old-media product endorsement. Well, it isn't.
So back to my initial reaction: I scratched my head for a bit and wondered "Why the heck is Fred Wilson endorsing Microsoft when he's also backing companies Microsoft would probably like to put out of business?"
Then I read your explanation, and that just made me wonder even more. It sounds like you got taken in by a combination of #3 and #4 above (i.e. you thought it wouldn't come across as an endorsement, and this is a cool exploration of new advertising models).
I suppose I can excuse you for getting overly excited about what looks new and innovative. I'd like to remind you, though, that it's also important to be able to tell when "new and innovative" is just "same old stuff" with slightly different packaging.
At the end of the day, this is no different than a ballplayer shilling for Wheaties, or Paul Harvey selling vacuum cleaners. So endorse all you like, just remember that credibility is earned by the teaspoon and burned by the gallon.
Posted by: Shivering Timbers | Jun 23, 2007 8:53:11 PM
What you did was modest, compared to this:
http://news.com.com/Gawker+Media+mystery+ads+appear+on+YouTube/2100-1025_3-6155627.html
Posted by: SpragueD | Jun 24, 2007 12:11:48 AM
I posted the following comment on VW, I'm just reposting it here in case it isn't approved. :-)
--
Is it really fair to compare TC or VW or even PC Magazine to…the New York Times? I mean is it a realistic comparison?
Nick, I wouldn’t necessarily “trust” you OR Michael as an arbiter of fair and unbiased *news* to begin with. Why would I? You’re both very opinionated with your own agendas and mostly what your sites are about isn’t journalism, but about what you guys think.
It’s often quite interesting, and almost always entertaining. But journalism?
I do trust you and Michael to give your real opinions and whatever Arrington did with “People Ready” doesn’t strike me as a breach as long as he actually uses any MSFT products in his daily life. I make no inference from that at all that TC is opposed to non Microsoft products and I’d go $100 that Arrington’s favorite portable media player is a non-Microsoft product. The “people ready” nonsense changes none of my thinking on this.
I’ve seen this NYT comparison all day and it’s dopey. This isn’t the New York Times running a paid endorsement of a radical cancer treatment that winds up looking like a news story and not a paid advertisement. Whatever the bitching and moaning about over FM and Microsoft’s “People Ready” campaign, I think it’s as meaningless. If you can prove that Arrington never uses a Microsoft Operating system, or any of the Office products fine, expose him as a fraud. Otherwise like it or not (and I see that you don’t like it) he is “People Ready”, which is of course absolutely meaningless.
I think the biggest mistake in this circle is you people seem to think it’s as important as the New York Times.
It isn’t.
Posted by: Robert Seidman | Jun 24, 2007 1:24:40 AM
Why Fred should be kept out of it? Fred doesn't consider himself a journalist of *any* kind.
New media marketing is still silly when it mirrors old media advertorials. Other people have good grips, even if you take journalistic creditability out of the question.
At the end of the day,
Nick wins, Microsoft wins, Battelle covers himself quite well and all of the bloggers he represents are hung out to dry.
Welcome to "As The Blogosphere Turns".
Thanks again Fred for engaging in this debate.
Posted by: Steve S | Jun 24, 2007 6:06:41 AM
Kevin,,
If the vast majority of a sites revenue comes from google adsense, they own you and I don't believe you can be objective about them.
Look at the mess Ebay is in because Google is trying to own them.
Posted by: Bruce | Jun 24, 2007 11:25:44 AM
Fred:
I have been a long time reader of your blog. I SWEAR that you stated, in an earlier post, that you would never read valleywag again. I think it had to do with a malicious post on their part. Am i correct?
Posted by: Scott Dalferes | Jun 24, 2007 9:20:10 PM
Here is your past comment on Valleywag:
what made you change? are you an investor now?
Valleywag
Is it just me or does anyone else think that Valleywag is over the top?
I am really not interested in the private lives of people when they leave work.
Maybe others are, but I find it really distateful.
It's out of my feed reader as of now.
Posted by: scott Dalferes | Jun 24, 2007 9:28:17 PM
Late to the party... Unless _I've_ misunderstood, I think most folks don't get what's happened here.
Fred did NOT promote a product or a company directly in his blog. What he and the others did was use two words that the ad-placing system would then use to add a specific banner ad to the page. It wasn't even a whole topic. It was TWO WORDS.
The bloggers were not even paid for the words themselves, but they do see revenue from having those matched ads on their blog. How is this different from accepting banner ads in general?
There's no endorsement here. This isn't even at the level of old media product placement.
If you're watching an interesting TV show and a Microsoft ad pops up during a commercial break, do you attack the host of the show? Of course not. But rest assured that commercial was put there based on the content of the show.
Advertising is designed to be sneaky. It's built on finding you and trying to sell you something.
Seriously people, get a grip. This is a personal blog and Fred can do what he wants with it. And if you think this is a sneaky and underhanded new media thing, you have NO IDEA what goes on in old media.
Posted by: fewquid | Jun 25, 2007 12:19:37 AM
If you're watching an interesting TV show and a Microsoft ad pops up during a commercial break, do you attack the host of the show?
If the host of the show is in the ad, I might! Actually, I wouldn't attack anyone for anything, but it might change my view of the host of the show if the show was billed as something personal and authentic.
Posted by: ted | Jun 25, 2007 1:56:46 PM
About the guy who doesn't want people commenting on his words; it's his right to have it that way if he wants to. But it may be that the problems of comment spam are too much and he doesn't want the hassles. I had a big problem with spammers posting comments on my blog; at one point I had to disable them altogether in order to staunch the flow of hundreds of spam clogging up my blog. What bugged me the most was that it was complete garbage; they weren't even spamming for pay sites or something that someone could make money off of, that would make sense, no, they were posting spam links that did not work. I then switched it to require approval. I am considering putting a captcha program in so that I don't even have to do that. I'd love to have (serious) comments about what I say, even if I disagree with them; it would mean someone is reading my words. But I hate having to be a garbage collector.
--
Paul Robinson — My Blog
Posted by: Paul Robinson | Jun 28, 2007 8:58:13 AM
Why is Nick Denton so "Old School"?
Hmm... maybe because he wants to retain credibility?
Sorry Fred. What credibility you might have had, is gone. - Tim
Posted by: Tim | Jun 28, 2007 9:04:39 AM
