3 ms·

The example that comes to mind is content that IS advertisement. For that you can look into just about any US magazine (not sure about UK, but I suspect they ar

The example that comes to mind is content that IS advertisement. For that you can look into just about any US magazine (not sure about UK, but I suspect they are very similar there), for example this article in GQ http://www.gq.com/food-travel/restaurants-and-bars/201211/foodie-gift-guide-2012 http://www.gq.com/food-travel/restaurants-and-bars/201211/fo.... In this instance, they are making recommendations to you from a position of authority, even though it comes from a position of selling ad space and delivering the ads as content. If you go to slide 3, you will see peppermint bark stuff "for the chocolate connoisseur", which is about as far as away from a chocolate connoisseur as I can think of, conveniently with a price right there. Another good example is celebrity magazines that just happen to drop the name of a designer that a particular celebrity is wearing. Keep in mind, I use adblock (edit: and noscript and ghostery) and these adverts still come up.

petercooper 14y ago
You got it. And my main observation (or hunch, to be safe!) is advertising "blindness", whether psychological or technological, has encouraged and will continue to encourage this form of advertising.
- mirkules 14y ago
  Interesting. I never thought of it as an advertisement arms-race, but that's what it is.
AlexMuir 14y ago
I don't disagree, but there's another side to this. It's happened in print for years - a review in June, a double page spread ad in July. But it damages editorial integrity and it dilutes genuine content. In print this doesn't really matter - there are huge barriers to entry, and newcomers are more likely than anyone to do it to make it easier to score revenue. Online though, if I suspect that [blognamehere] are plugging something shit for profit I'll just go elsewhere for my news. It doesn't cost me a penny, and there are infinite other options.
- mirkules 14y ago
  Great point. Once you buy the magazine, the money is spent, whether you like it or not. Although, it should encourage you to not buy anymore. On the flip side, printed magazines would be so prohibitively expensive without adverts that nobody would buy them, so I guess in print it's a balancing act between alienating users via too many ads or cost of the magazine.

petercooper 14y ago

You got it. And my main observation (or hunch, to be safe!) is advertising "blindness", whether psychological or technological, has encouraged and will continue to encourage this form of advertising.

mirkules 14y ago
Interesting. I never thought of it as an advertisement arms-race, but that's what it is.

AlexMuir 14y ago

I don't disagree, but there's another side to this. It's happened in print for years - a review in June, a double page spread ad in July. But it damages editorial integrity and it dilutes genuine content. In print this doesn't really matter - there are huge barriers to entry, and newcomers are more likely than anyone to do it to make it easier to score revenue. Online though, if I suspect that [blognamehere] are plugging something shit for profit I'll just go elsewhere for my news. It doesn't cost me a penny, and there are infinite other options.

mirkules 14y ago
Great point. Once you buy the magazine, the money is spent, whether you like it or not. Although, it should encourage you to not buy anymore. On the flip side, printed magazines would be so prohibitively expensive without adverts that nobody would buy them, so I guess in print it's a balancing act between alienating users via too many ads or cost of the magazine.