3 ms·

Betting it's not him but his publisher. There is a massive industry dedicated to this sort of guerrilla marketing these days. If a company of a certain size is

by ajkjk 2y ago

Betting it's not him but his publisher. There is a massive industry dedicated to this sort of guerrilla marketing these days. If a company of a certain size is putting out a press release they will coordinate to have seemingly-unrelated articles show up in various news sources (think New Yorker but also, like, ArsTechnica, or even the HN frontpage.) Even though the articles aren't technically ads, they get the name out there so it's on people's minds, making them more susceptible to hearing about/engaging with the news. I've seen this happen internally at my last employer, but have the impression that it's standard operating procedure in corporate marketing these days. It is quite gross and I'd like to see it banned wholesale (or at least the relationship should be mandatorily disclosed). But... we would need to believe as a country in regulating ourselves to do that.

edavison1 2y ago
The idea that arts criticism is somehow 'guerilla marketing' is such a deeply cynical, HN brain take. Of course the people who make things want to get the word out about what they're doing. But The New Yorker doesn't collude with PR agencies to promote things. It's news when people make new things; that's literally the whole idea in coverage of the arts. Is it really your position that when a movie, game or book is reviewed in The New Yorker it's because some PR person told them to? Chris Bryd is a well-respected games journalist, not some industry shill. He's probably wanted to write about this topic for years, and the forthcoming game is part of what makes the profile newsworthy right now. Anyway if you believe arts criticism is 'quite gross' and want it banned, what does that world look like? Should people who make things not be allowed to tell publications about it? Will there be a cone of silence around new games?
- ajkjk 2y ago
  You misunderstand. I'm not being cynical: it really actually does work this way. I'm describing a thing that I have seen happen from the inside. Paul Graham wrote about it here: https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
  - edavison1 2y ago
    I get your view, read the essay years ago and we agree on the facts. I'm a journalist who gets 5-10 PR junk PR pitches a day. I don’t pitch stories from PR hacks--I pitch and write about the stuff I think is interesting and important. If I got an awesome pitch from a PR person tomorrow about something like that, why wouldn't I pursue the story? I fully acknowledge the PR industry exists but to suggest that coverage of a beloved indie game creator by one of my industry's most respected reporters is somehow paid off or inauthentic because PR exists is such a leap. As I said earlier he's probably been trying to write about the Stanley Parable for years. I also have firsthand experience of people I know at startups believing that their PR firm 'bought' them coverage. But if you read Paul's essay again he's careful to acknowledge that the service good PR firms are able to provide is that they can connect with journalists for stories not because of some shady undisclosed loyalty but because the PR people bring them interesting topics.
bongodongobob 2y ago
That's just how the news works dude. You can just call them and say "hey I have something for you to write about". If it's interesting and/or you already have a relationship, which their publisher likely does, it's pretty easy to get an article written.
- ajkjk 2y ago
  Sure? I don't have to like it.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    You don't like that people are telling "the news" that there's something new? The world is your oyster.
    - steezeburger 2y ago
      I'm going to go out on a limb and say they dislike the manufactured hype.
      - bongodongobob 2y ago
        What here is manufactured?
    - ajkjk 2y ago
      Nah, I dislike the thing I was talking about. You are choosing to misunderstand me, but I have no idea why.
      - bongodongobob 2y ago
        You said you don't like it when things are marketed/written about. Why? That's the point of "news".

by ajkjk 2y ago

edavison1 2y ago

The idea that arts criticism is somehow 'guerilla marketing' is such a deeply cynical, HN brain take. Of course the people who make things want to get the word out about what they're doing. But The New Yorker doesn't collude with PR agencies to promote things. It's news when people make new things; that's literally the whole idea in coverage of the arts. Is it really your position that when a movie, game or book is reviewed in The New Yorker it's because some PR person told them to? Chris Bryd is a well-respected games journalist, not some industry shill. He's probably wanted to write about this topic for years, and the forthcoming game is part of what makes the profile newsworthy right now. Anyway if you believe arts criticism is 'quite gross' and want it banned, what does that world look like? Should people who make things not be allowed to tell publications about it? Will there be a cone of silence around new games?

ajkjk 2y ago
You misunderstand. I'm not being cynical: it really actually does work this way. I'm describing a thing that I have seen happen from the inside. Paul Graham wrote about it here: https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- edavison1 2y ago
  I get your view, read the essay years ago and we agree on the facts. I'm a journalist who gets 5-10 PR junk PR pitches a day. I don’t pitch stories from PR hacks--I pitch and write about the stuff I think is interesting and important. If I got an awesome pitch from a PR person tomorrow about something like that, why wouldn't I pursue the story? I fully acknowledge the PR industry exists but to suggest that coverage of a beloved indie game creator by one of my industry's most respected reporters is somehow paid off or inauthentic because PR exists is such a leap. As I said earlier he's probably been trying to write about the Stanley Parable for years. I also have firsthand experience of people I know at startups believing that their PR firm 'bought' them coverage. But if you read Paul's essay again he's careful to acknowledge that the service good PR firms are able to provide is that they can connect with journalists for stories not because of some shady undisclosed loyalty but because the PR people bring them interesting topics.

bongodongobob 2y ago

That's just how the news works dude. You can just call them and say "hey I have something for you to write about". If it's interesting and/or you already have a relationship, which their publisher likely does, it's pretty easy to get an article written.

ajkjk 2y ago
Sure? I don't have to like it.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  You don't like that people are telling "the news" that there's something new? The world is your oyster.
  - steezeburger 2y ago
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say they dislike the manufactured hype.
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      What here is manufactured?
  - ajkjk 2y ago
    Nah, I dislike the thing I was talking about. You are choosing to misunderstand me, but I have no idea why.
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      You said you don't like it when things are marketed/written about. Why? That's the point of "news".