« Programming My iPod |
Main
| Another Discovery »
Comments (51) |
Posted June 23, 2007
in
Venture Capital and Technology
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
A VC
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
