4 ms·

I interpreted that to mean "Disney didn't pay us for this, and since there are no actionable items (such as purchasing tickets) we make nothing out of putting t

by Navarr 10y ago

I interpreted that to mean "Disney didn't pay us for this, and since there are no actionable items (such as purchasing tickets) we make nothing out of putting this information out there. Google's follow up statement after that markety statement: > This wasn’t intended to be an ad. What’s circulating online was a part of our My Day feature, where after providing helpful information about your day, we sometimes call out timely content. We’re continuing to experiment with new ways to surface unique content for users and we could have done better in this case. So I'm unfamiliar with how exactly this is evil corporatist greed?

raesene9 10y ago
Did you read the original article? http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/3/16/14948696/google-home-assistant-advertising-beauty-and-the-beast http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/3/16/14948696/go... Disney have a new movie out, "Promotional content" doesn't have to explictly say "but tickets here" to be effectively an advert, and I'd be seriously surprised if Disney didn't pay Google for that placement.
- Navarr 10y ago
  Yes, I did. My thoughts were based off the original article, which is what I quoted the follow up statement from. What's the difference between "advertisement" and unpaid product promotion the user is likely to be highly interested in knowing has been released?
  - raesene9 10y ago
    if a company is telling me about their products which I would have to pay to consume (e.g a movie), and I didn't specifically ask to be told about the (by active consent), that's an advert. Also really not sure why you don't think Disney paid for this, Google's wording was ambiguous on that topic at best and the idea they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts stretches belief more than a little.
    - Navarr 10y ago
      Beauty and the Beast is not a Google product (unless you stretch some definitions - I imagine Google probably owns some small stake in Disney right? would be a good investment). Google knows I like Pokémon - just from my search results - would telling me the new Pokémon games are out be an advertisement? Where do we draw the line? I'm of the opinion, that based on Google's wording, they were not paid for this placement - which is why they'd be refusing to call it an advertisement.
      - raesene9 10y ago
        Of course it's not, it's a Disney product, an advertiser who uses Google's platform to advertise. Just like when you use Google's search you get adverts for other people's products at the top. Google are not generally known for providing free promotional content for other large commercial companies, so whilst you can choose to believe that it was unpaid that, combined with the fact that both news articles referenced and users whe received it referred to it as an advert, would suggest to me that on the balance of probabilities, you are incorrect.

by Navarr 10y ago

raesene9 10y ago

Did you read the original article? http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/3/16/14948696/google-home-assistant-advertising-beauty-and-the-beast http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/3/16/14948696/go... Disney have a new movie out, "Promotional content" doesn't have to explictly say "but tickets here" to be effectively an advert, and I'd be seriously surprised if Disney didn't pay Google for that placement.

Navarr 10y ago
Yes, I did. My thoughts were based off the original article, which is what I quoted the follow up statement from. What's the difference between "advertisement" and unpaid product promotion the user is likely to be highly interested in knowing has been released?
- raesene9 10y ago
  if a company is telling me about their products which I would have to pay to consume (e.g a movie), and I didn't specifically ask to be told about the (by active consent), that's an advert. Also really not sure why you don't think Disney paid for this, Google's wording was ambiguous on that topic at best and the idea they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts stretches belief more than a little.
  - Navarr 10y ago
    Beauty and the Beast is not a Google product (unless you stretch some definitions - I imagine Google probably owns some small stake in Disney right? would be a good investment). Google knows I like Pokémon - just from my search results - would telling me the new Pokémon games are out be an advertisement? Where do we draw the line? I'm of the opinion, that based on Google's wording, they were not paid for this placement - which is why they'd be refusing to call it an advertisement.
    - raesene9 10y ago
      Of course it's not, it's a Disney product, an advertiser who uses Google's platform to advertise. Just like when you use Google's search you get adverts for other people's products at the top. Google are not generally known for providing free promotional content for other large commercial companies, so whilst you can choose to believe that it was unpaid that, combined with the fact that both news articles referenced and users whe received it referred to it as an advert, would suggest to me that on the balance of probabilities, you are incorrect.