3 ms·

Disclaimer: I run startup that helps publishers to create these types of sponsored stories. Sponsored stories are much better way to monetize content, especial

by dm8 14y ago

Disclaimer: I run startup that helps publishers to create these types of sponsored stories. Sponsored stories are much better way to monetize content, especially for journalism industry. However, the issue is publishers should control what type of 'ads' should go live since they know their audience best. Editors should be in control of these type of ads rather than sales people. "Content Marketing" is relatively new in digital realm and I hope these type of mishaps will be avoided as industry matures.

tnorthcutt 14y ago
startup that helps publishers to create these types of sponsored stories. What does that mean, in practice? Are publishers not capable of running an article by themselves and adding a "Sponsored Content" banner/notice at the top?
- dm8 14y ago
  It's not that simple. There are lot of pieces. Feel free to send me an email (in my profile page). I don't want to sidetrack current topic.
- illuminate 14y ago
  They apparently don't do it convincingly enough.
contingencies 14y ago
What you are doing is basically deriving monetary benefit from the considered act of deliberately manipulating people's views on behalf of corporate interests. That is not only morally wrong, but it is disgusting that you attempt to justify it as completely normal and right through allusion to 'monetization'. (Telling example - monetization of hatred: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AP.pdf http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AP.pdf)
- dm8 14y ago
  > What you are doing is basically deriving monetary benefit from the considered act of deliberately manipulating people's views on behalf of corporate interests. No way. Even we are users too. We have family members who are not as tech savvy as us. We are not doing anything deliberately. In fact, if we are deceiving users then it won't be advertising. We are equally concerned of maintaining sanctity of advertising. We (as a startup) don't work with news websites. But we strongly believe ads should be clearly marked as "advertising". Even people were concerned about Google's sponsored results (adwords). But it worked fine. Mark Suster wrote excellent blogpost on this topic - http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/22/the-case-for-in-stream-advertising/ http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/22/the-case-for-i...
  - contingencies 14y ago
    > (whole lot of tangents with no actual response) Pragmatically, you do seem to be in the right industry.
spoiledtechie 14y ago
sorry, but I agree. wholeheartedly immoral. Your doing exactly what corporations on the hill are doing to Congressman. Putting congressman in touch with corporations so that they might write our laws. Thats how I see you.
- dm8 14y ago
  > sorry, but I agree. wholeheartedly immoral. Google also mixes sponsored results in their search results. Is that immoral?
  - spoiledtechie 14y ago
    You are not mixing sponsored pages in with your content. Your content IS that sponsored page.

by dm8 14y ago

tnorthcutt 14y ago

startup that helps publishers to create these types of sponsored stories. What does that mean, in practice? Are publishers not capable of running an article by themselves and adding a "Sponsored Content" banner/notice at the top?

dm8 14y ago
It's not that simple. There are lot of pieces. Feel free to send me an email (in my profile page). I don't want to sidetrack current topic.
illuminate 14y ago
They apparently don't do it convincingly enough.

contingencies 14y ago

What you are doing is basically deriving monetary benefit from the considered act of deliberately manipulating people's views on behalf of corporate interests. That is not only morally wrong, but it is disgusting that you attempt to justify it as completely normal and right through allusion to 'monetization'. (Telling example - monetization of hatred: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AP.pdf http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/AP.pdf)

dm8 14y ago
> What you are doing is basically deriving monetary benefit from the considered act of deliberately manipulating people's views on behalf of corporate interests. No way. Even we are users too. We have family members who are not as tech savvy as us. We are not doing anything deliberately. In fact, if we are deceiving users then it won't be advertising. We are equally concerned of maintaining sanctity of advertising. We (as a startup) don't work with news websites. But we strongly believe ads should be clearly marked as "advertising". Even people were concerned about Google's sponsored results (adwords). But it worked fine. Mark Suster wrote excellent blogpost on this topic - http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/22/the-case-for-in-stream-advertising/ http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/22/the-case-for-i...
- contingencies 14y ago
  > (whole lot of tangents with no actual response) Pragmatically, you do seem to be in the right industry.

spoiledtechie 14y ago

sorry, but I agree. wholeheartedly immoral. Your doing exactly what corporations on the hill are doing to Congressman. Putting congressman in touch with corporations so that they might write our laws. Thats how I see you.

dm8 14y ago
> sorry, but I agree. wholeheartedly immoral. Google also mixes sponsored results in their search results. Is that immoral?
- spoiledtechie 14y ago
  You are not mixing sponsored pages in with your content. Your content IS that sponsored page.