4 ms·

Yeah agreed. For the record, they're clearly marked as sponsored posts. The URL is even marked as "paidpost.nytimes.com." Here's an example: http://paidpost.ny

• logicallee 10y ago
  The New York Times does not allow genuine native advertising. Pearl Automation was not able to pay the ad department a check, in exchange for writing a "native advertising" story about them. They could have instigated it. But they didn't pay for it. This wasn't paid for out of their ad budget. It's a huge win for their PR department - because they got the NYT to write that article (or were very pleasantly surprised to see it). Not paid for it.
  • narrowrail 10y ago
    >But they didn't pay for it. So the paidpost subdomain means nothing? I'm curious if that's true as it seems a rather odd choice for a subdomain.
    • grzm 10y ago
      The Pearl Automation story, which 'logicallee refers to, doesn't have a paidpost subdomain. The Cole Haan paid post which 'achompas linked to does.
      • Hydraulix989 10y ago
        Though it isn't necessarily implied that _all_ paid articles have that subdomain (somehow I feel like that would be a tricky thing to enforce at a big journalism outfit like NYT).
        • grzm 10y ago
          Why would that be the case? Ads are handled differently than content. Paid posts I'm sure have their own process independent of content. That's what CMS does. It's also clearly marked Paid Post, and it's styling is distinct from other NYT content. [edit to add: Indeed, given the size of the NYT, adherence to a well-defined process is a necessity. The likelihood that a paid post was mistakenly displayed as content would arguably be much less.] The subdomain isn't the point, however. I was clarifying a misunderstanding in the thread. If you're aware of paid content in the NYT that isn't marked Paid Post or something similar, please let me know.
          • Hydraulix989 10y ago
            I'm not sure how this one slipped under the radar then? Sounds like you might have an idea? Also, describing the NYT in such a manner is an "appeal to authority."
            • grzm 10y ago
              I disagree with the contention that the Pearl Automation article is a paid post or "obviously paid content marketing material". It reads more casually, more like long-form journalism than a straight up article, but not like paid content. Prior to this comment, I don't see where I'm arguing anything other than clarifying a difference between the Cole Haan paid post and the Pearl Automation article and that a larger organization needs more process to efficiently produce content at scale, neither of which I think is particularly contentious. Neither of which I see requires or is an appeal to authority. If you think otherwise, please feel free to point out where.
              • Hydraulix989 10y ago
                Do you agree with @harryh that the article is marketing material? Also, @achompas's sibling post was the appeal to authority, not yours, sorry for the confusion.
                • 10y ago
  • achompas 10y ago
    We actually agree. I think there's miscommunication going on here. Two facts: 1. NYT does have a native advertising unit. They produce posts like the one I linked earlier -- that article was sponsored by Cole Haan. 2. The Pearl article is not a native ad. If it were, it would be clearly marked as such (like the article I linked). It could be PR, but that's par for the tech industry (see: Apple's controlled leaks via WSJ/NYT over the years).