4 ms·

That sounds like paying artists with "exposure".

• ufmace 5y ago
  There is kind of a 2-sided argument here: 1. Small time cheap skate business owners sometimes try to cheat professional artists by "paying with exposure", when they have no meaningful audience or influence and therefore no meaningful exposure to give. 2. Sources that do genuinely have very large audiences and influence can infact give an artist so much exposure that it's worth far more than any reasonable direct payment This situation seems a lot more like 2 than 1. The company is in the business of helping companies secure their cloud environments, and these articles going around the tech press are being read by hundreds of thousands of people who are generally more interested in cloud security than a random person. They could spend many times the amounts discussed here on advertising and still not get their name in front of that many of the right people in a good context.
  • doliveira 5y ago
    Big or small company, I doubt they can pay the employees' salary with "exposure". They might have pratically infinite VC money for now, but that's an orthogonal discussion, just as "exposure" and being fairly compensated are. edit: and what about it had been a smaller company or individual researcher who wouldn't be able to gain as much from this publicity? Are you saying that Microsoft would have awarded them $ 500k? Because that's not the message sent with this reward. And frankly, even this discussion is kind of off-the-point because I doubt that's what they took into account when defining the money quantity.