6 ms·

I don't think "fears" is really the right word, and is not part of the original headline... Regardless, sponsored editorial content is one of those icky things

by tempsy 7y ago

I don't think "fears" is really the right word, and is not part of the original headline... Regardless, sponsored editorial content is one of those icky things that I'm surprised remotely reputable journalistic outlets get into. You're renting out your reputation to those that could use it (e.g. likely not very reputable themselves and thus can easily drag you down). How much does an article like this go for? Six-figure range? It just seems like the monetary reward doesn't make up for the possible damage to your perceived journalistic integrity.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
Six figures? My guess is in the low thousands -- if that. Teen Vogue is not that big of a website -- according to SimilarWeb it gets 4M visits every six months, which is less than ~22k visits a day. A reasonable CPC for native content is under 10 cents. Assuming a 5% CTR (high), that's 1k clicks, for ~$100. A reasonable CPM is also under 10 cents. That comes in at ~$200. News articles don't stay on the front page very long. It's amazing and pathetic how willing companies are to throw their reputation into the ground for almost no money.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tempsy 7y ago
  The math is different when a company is paying for it. It's not the same economics as a random ad that shows up on the page.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    I know. They overpay for stuff like this. But in the order of 10s, not thousands. The point was, the OP guessed six figures. I was trying to make it clear that I can't imagine this being above the low four figures.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - tempsy 7y ago
      this is dumb, but I don't think vogue is that dumb. for < $10k many individuals and corporations seeking to wash their reputation by pumping "fake news" could afford it, and if that were true you'd see a lot more of this. I can't imagine it would be that cheap.
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        It might cost more than $10,000 to publish something like this, but not all of that money goes to the venue. Just because Teen Vogue didn't have to write it doesn't mean nobody had to write it.
      - gowld 7y ago
        We do see a lot more of this. In all the papers all the time. Usually it's free (except for salaries of PR people) because the propaganda victims pay for it with their monetized eyeballs.
downerending 7y ago
> and is not part of the original headline... These days, how can we even know?
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>TeenVogue > surprised remotely reputable journalistic outlets get into Not seeing it. Edit: blind defense of a very biased site in an article showing they are literally shilling for Facebook... Ok.
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  TeenVogue has done some of the best political and cultural reporting over the last few years. Teenage girls these days apparently care very deeply about the issues that matter. Today's scandal was surprising to me.
  - makomk 7y ago
    To be more accurate, Teen Vogue has done some of the most consistently and aggressively anti-Trump political and cultural reporting over the last few years. (They've gained quite a following online for it.) Which is why this caught people's attention in the first place - it's pretty much the exact diametrical opposite of that. A soft-pedalled fluff piece like this about women in tech doing important and powerful things would be right on brand for Teen Vogue's traditional role as a magazine for teenage girls, but that's not their audience anymore. For additional context, a lot of the folks who like Teen Vogue respect the New York Times less despite their investigative reporting because they're just not anti-Trump enough. In particular, there's a lot of resentment online over them pushing back against that bizarre conspiracy thoery about Trump's DNS-based secret communication channel with Russia that was obviously nothing of the sort. Not even particularly strongly - they just responded to an incredibly viral tweet by Clinton's campaign demanding the FBI investigate it by reporting that they already did and concluded all the evidence pointed to it just being ordinary mailservers processing ordinary hotel mass marketing emails - but that was enough.
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    Do you have any examples? I picked one up and saw ads, some soft-hitting feelgood near-politics, and some social justice stuff, but nothing of any substance. It looked like what it was... a medium for serving ads to little girls.
Alex3917 7y ago
> How much does an article like this go for? Six-figure range? Anywhere between $800 and $5,000. Most of these articles aren't written by the company paying the magazine, but rather the company hiring a firm to pay off one of the hundreds of people who has publishing access to the magazine's CMS.
- tempsy 7y ago
  do you have data? a source? for that price nearly any individual in the world could "publish" an article on a major news outlet and make it look like it was written by the editorial staff. this was a dumb move by vogue, but I hardly believe they were paid off for a few hundred dollars by a $500B company and ok with that.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > this was a dumb move by vogue No. This was a dumb move by Advance Publications, who owns Teen Vogue. If companies want the benefits of owning half the market, then let them share the stink of their corruption as well.
    - notatoad 7y ago
      i get what you're trying to say here, the parent company deserves blame, but ultimately those parent companies are only worth what their brands are worth. The reason they have generic and forgettable names like "Advance Publications" is so they can absorb the stink of corruption without it tainting their consumer-facing brands. Putting the blame on a recognizable and valuable brand instead of a faceless parent company is the better way to get accountability. If you really want to spread the blame around, you can mention that it's the owner of Reddit and the parent company of Ars Technica, Wired and The New Yorker as well as Teen Vogue.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        You're right, I phrased myself poorly. Putting the blame also on all their subsidiaries, as you suggest, is what I meant.
dang 7y ago
The submitted title was "Teen Vogue story on Facebook prompts sponsored content fears, vanishes". That was a decent attempt to squeeze the title down to HN's 80 char limit, but we've replaced it with the article's first subheading, which seems more factual and neutral.
JohnFen 7y ago
> I'm surprised remotely reputable journalistic outlets get into. They don't. They may have been reputable before they do this sort of thing, but that reputation is toast once they sell out.

by tempsy 7y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

Six figures? My guess is in the low thousands -- if that. Teen Vogue is not that big of a website -- according to SimilarWeb it gets 4M visits every six months, which is less than ~22k visits a day. A reasonable CPC for native content is under 10 cents. Assuming a 5% CTR (high), that's 1k clicks, for ~$100. A reasonable CPM is also under 10 cents. That comes in at ~$200. News articles don't stay on the front page very long. It's amazing and pathetic how willing companies are to throw their reputation into the ground for almost no money.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tempsy 7y ago
The math is different when a company is paying for it. It's not the same economics as a random ad that shows up on the page.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  I know. They overpay for stuff like this. But in the order of 10s, not thousands. The point was, the OP guessed six figures. I was trying to make it clear that I can't imagine this being above the low four figures.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tempsy 7y ago
    this is dumb, but I don't think vogue is that dumb. for < $10k many individuals and corporations seeking to wash their reputation by pumping "fake news" could afford it, and if that were true you'd see a lot more of this. I can't imagine it would be that cheap.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      It might cost more than $10,000 to publish something like this, but not all of that money goes to the venue. Just because Teen Vogue didn't have to write it doesn't mean nobody had to write it.
    - gowld 7y ago
      We do see a lot more of this. In all the papers all the time. Usually it's free (except for salaries of PR people) because the propaganda victims pay for it with their monetized eyeballs.

downerending 7y ago

> and is not part of the original headline... These days, how can we even know?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

>TeenVogue > surprised remotely reputable journalistic outlets get into Not seeing it. Edit: blind defense of a very biased site in an article showing they are literally shilling for Facebook... Ok.

dreamcompiler 7y ago
TeenVogue has done some of the best political and cultural reporting over the last few years. Teenage girls these days apparently care very deeply about the issues that matter. Today's scandal was surprising to me.
- makomk 7y ago
  To be more accurate, Teen Vogue has done some of the most consistently and aggressively anti-Trump political and cultural reporting over the last few years. (They've gained quite a following online for it.) Which is why this caught people's attention in the first place - it's pretty much the exact diametrical opposite of that. A soft-pedalled fluff piece like this about women in tech doing important and powerful things would be right on brand for Teen Vogue's traditional role as a magazine for teenage girls, but that's not their audience anymore. For additional context, a lot of the folks who like Teen Vogue respect the New York Times less despite their investigative reporting because they're just not anti-Trump enough. In particular, there's a lot of resentment online over them pushing back against that bizarre conspiracy thoery about Trump's DNS-based secret communication channel with Russia that was obviously nothing of the sort. Not even particularly strongly - they just responded to an incredibly viral tweet by Clinton's campaign demanding the FBI investigate it by reporting that they already did and concluded all the evidence pointed to it just being ordinary mailservers processing ordinary hotel mass marketing emails - but that was enough.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  Do you have any examples? I picked one up and saw ads, some soft-hitting feelgood near-politics, and some social justice stuff, but nothing of any substance. It looked like what it was... a medium for serving ads to little girls.

Alex3917 7y ago

> How much does an article like this go for? Six-figure range? Anywhere between $800 and $5,000. Most of these articles aren't written by the company paying the magazine, but rather the company hiring a firm to pay off one of the hundreds of people who has publishing access to the magazine's CMS.

tempsy 7y ago
do you have data? a source? for that price nearly any individual in the world could "publish" an article on a major news outlet and make it look like it was written by the editorial staff. this was a dumb move by vogue, but I hardly believe they were paid off for a few hundred dollars by a $500B company and ok with that.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > this was a dumb move by vogue No. This was a dumb move by Advance Publications, who owns Teen Vogue. If companies want the benefits of owning half the market, then let them share the stink of their corruption as well.
  - notatoad 7y ago
    i get what you're trying to say here, the parent company deserves blame, but ultimately those parent companies are only worth what their brands are worth. The reason they have generic and forgettable names like "Advance Publications" is so they can absorb the stink of corruption without it tainting their consumer-facing brands. Putting the blame on a recognizable and valuable brand instead of a faceless parent company is the better way to get accountability. If you really want to spread the blame around, you can mention that it's the owner of Reddit and the parent company of Ars Technica, Wired and The New Yorker as well as Teen Vogue.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      You're right, I phrased myself poorly. Putting the blame also on all their subsidiaries, as you suggest, is what I meant.

dang 7y ago

The submitted title was "Teen Vogue story on Facebook prompts sponsored content fears, vanishes". That was a decent attempt to squeeze the title down to HN's 80 char limit, but we've replaced it with the article's first subheading, which seems more factual and neutral.

JohnFen 7y ago

> I'm surprised remotely reputable journalistic outlets get into. They don't. They may have been reputable before they do this sort of thing, but that reputation is toast once they sell out.