5 ms·

JetSmarter tries to extort journalists for positive coverage

20 points by coloneltcb 10y ago

zaroth 10y ago
I really don't see how you could call an unfavorable/unacceptable contract you chose not to sign "extortion" in any way. From the quoted contact language, the $2,000 charge is if the journalist skipped out on the demo flight or failed to write an article. I think what's missing here is if Verge really established JetSmarter was trying to exert editorial control. If they had replied for example, "we want to amend the contract to clarify that JetSmarter will not have any editorial control over the article produced" and then JetSmarter refused I would be much more suspect. If I'm giving a journalist an expensive service trial it's not crazy to have a contract requiring an article actually be written. It seems like they are hanging the whole story on a single word ("positive") in the contract.
- anjalik 10y ago
  Why should a journalist be required to write an article, trial or not? What if they take the trial and it turns out it's not really worth writing about it at all?
  - zaroth 10y ago
    I don't see a problem with making an offer of a free trial of the service in exchange for an article. I can see how a company may not want to spend thousands to demo a consumable service to a journalist and possibly end up with nothing to show about it. Of course the journalist is absolutely free to decline the offer.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      Of course the company would not like a negative review, but they could always place an advertisement. Clearly they want to buy the appearance of objectivity, and they have gone about it very clumsily. It is amusing that in so doing they have turned it into the story, but it is a bit disturbing that they think they can get away with it - and with good reason, apparently.
- duskwuff 10y ago
  Binding the journalist to write an article about their "positive experience with JetSmarter" seems to be the point of the contract, though. That's clearly trying to exert editorial control. Hardly a minor detail.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  >It seems like they are hanging the whole story on a single word ("positive") in the contract. Well yes - that is precisely the point. It might be a little word, but it is a $2,000 word. It is a little word, but so is "protection", and there couldn't be anything threatening about protection, could there?
mgiannopoulos 10y ago
Interestingly, the URL of the article has "sponsored-articles" in it, so perhaps the company was offering money for a positive review but The Verge "neglected" to mention this?
NonEUCitizen 10y ago
If it were condition-free (i.e. no $2K charge on bad or late coverage), the journalist should still not accept the free flight -- it would be bribery.

20 points by coloneltcb 10y ago

I really don't see how you could call an unfavorable/unacceptable contract you chose not to sign "extortion" in any way. From the quoted contact language, the $2,000 charge is if the journalist skipped out on the demo flight or failed to write an article. I think what's missing here is if Verge really established JetSmarter was trying to exert editorial control. If they had replied for example, "we want to amend the contract to clarify that JetSmarter will not have any editorial control over the article produced" and then JetSmarter refused I would be much more suspect. If I'm giving a journalist an expensive service trial it's not crazy to have a contract requiring an article actually be written. It seems like they are hanging the whole story on a single word ("positive") in the contract.

anjalik 10y ago
Why should a journalist be required to write an article, trial or not? What if they take the trial and it turns out it's not really worth writing about it at all?
- zaroth 10y ago
  I don't see a problem with making an offer of a free trial of the service in exchange for an article. I can see how a company may not want to spend thousands to demo a consumable service to a journalist and possibly end up with nothing to show about it. Of course the journalist is absolutely free to decline the offer.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    Of course the company would not like a negative review, but they could always place an advertisement. Clearly they want to buy the appearance of objectivity, and they have gone about it very clumsily. It is amusing that in so doing they have turned it into the story, but it is a bit disturbing that they think they can get away with it - and with good reason, apparently.
duskwuff 10y ago
Binding the journalist to write an article about their "positive experience with JetSmarter" seems to be the point of the contract, though. That's clearly trying to exert editorial control. Hardly a minor detail.
mannykannot 10y ago
>It seems like they are hanging the whole story on a single word ("positive") in the contract. Well yes - that is precisely the point. It might be a little word, but it is a $2,000 word. It is a little word, but so is "protection", and there couldn't be anything threatening about protection, could there?

mgiannopoulos 10y ago

Interestingly, the URL of the article has "sponsored-articles" in it, so perhaps the company was offering money for a positive review but The Verge "neglected" to mention this?

NonEUCitizen 10y ago

If it were condition-free (i.e. no $2K charge on bad or late coverage), the journalist should still not accept the free flight -- it would be bribery.