4 ms·

I'm not entirely sure why good writing 'suffers more' from proximity to a direct-marketing campaign - acai berries, belly fat, whatever - than it would from, sa

I'm not entirely sure why good writing 'suffers more' from proximity to a direct-marketing campaign - acai berries, belly fat, whatever - than it would from, say, an ad for a Ford Focus or The King's Speech. Both offer an equivalent amount of visual distraction. It's not about visual distraction, it's about reputation and the reputation-by-assocation of the publication on who's website the ads appear. I trust car manufacturers and movie studios a lot more than the people behind those acai berry and belly fat ads, which to me, are as bad as spam about Viagra and Cialis.

gyardley 16y ago
According to the article, it's about 'protecting visual space for reading'. But now that I see this comment's been upvoted, I'm curious - if good writing does in fact 'suffer' when placed beside an advertisement you don't trust, why is that, and how exactly does the writing suffer? You'd be capable of identifying good writing without any advertising alongside it. But when the exact same article is placed beside an acai berry ad, somehow the experience is worse. How come? Does having the acai berry ad there make you feel foolish somehow? Do you not want to be associated with it? Are you worried that someone might see you reading something alongside an acai berry ad? When you read the content, are you thinking of acai berries? These thoughts never enter my mind, but I could be atypical. Perhaps you're simply less likely to start the article, having seen the acai berries first? If most people out there can't evaluate content independent of the advertising that supports it, that's got interesting implications for the online ad industry. Perhaps quality brands should start charging sites for the privilege of displaying their reputation-enhancing banners.

4 ms·

I'm not entirely sure why good writing 'suffers more' from proximity to a direct-marketing campaign - acai berries, belly fat, whatever - than it would from, sa

by haribilalic 16y ago

gyardley 16y ago
According to the article, it's about 'protecting visual space for reading'. But now that I see this comment's been upvoted, I'm curious - if good writing does in fact 'suffer' when placed beside an advertisement you don't trust, why is that, and how exactly does the writing suffer? You'd be capable of identifying good writing without any advertising alongside it. But when the exact same article is placed beside an acai berry ad, somehow the experience is worse. How come? Does having the acai berry ad there make you feel foolish somehow? Do you not want to be associated with it? Are you worried that someone might see you reading something alongside an acai berry ad? When you read the content, are you thinking of acai berries? These thoughts never enter my mind, but I could be atypical. Perhaps you're simply less likely to start the article, having seen the acai berries first? If most people out there can't evaluate content independent of the advertising that supports it, that's got interesting implications for the online ad industry. Perhaps quality brands should start charging sites for the privilege of displaying their reputation-enhancing banners.