5 ms·

I'd rather not. It introduces a pretty big conflict of interest (for example, Gruber would probably think twice before writing something negative about a former

by jonas21 12y ago

I'd rather not. It introduces a pretty big conflict of interest (for example, Gruber would probably think twice before writing something negative about a former sponsor when he's on the record endorsing them) and blurs the line between advertising and editorial content. As mentioned in the article: > the cost today ranges between $8,000 – $10,000 dollars per placement and you get to write your own post, essentially Maybe this isn't a big deal for DF, but I can imagine this would lead to a total lack of trust for other independent journalists.

dilap 12y ago
It's a valid concern, but honestly I think the distorting effects are probably much less than e.g., having to chase clickbait topics for CPM advertising or having Carlos Slim be your largest single investor, etc.
- armandososa 12y ago
  You piqued my curiosity. What's the Carlos Slim comment related to?
  - gyardley 12y ago
    He's probably referring to the New York Times.
    - dilap 12y ago
      Yup.
Moto7451 12y ago
PBS and NPR have to deal with this issue every year and their solution is pretty simple. They report it as they would want to, mention that X Co sponsored them in the past/present, and don't take their advertising dollars for that piece.
- jonas21 12y ago
  There's a big difference between saying "this segment is sponsored by X Co" and letting X Co write their own endorsement that they can then quote as a testimonial from you.
  - oddevan 12y ago
    If you're referring to Desk quoting Gruber on their home page, they quoted from Gruber's "thank you" post which, while it borrows a lot from the original sponsor-written post, is still written by Gruber himself.
    - saddington 12y ago
      Yeah, i felt good about using this quote but was definitely not going to use something that I wrote myself. ... because that would be super-lame.
mcphage 12y ago
> I'd rather not. It introduces a pretty big conflict of interest (for example, Gruber would probably think twice before writing something negative about a former sponsor when he's on the record endorsing them) Generally the companies that advertise on his site are companies that his readers would find useful, but generally aren't the kind of companies that he discusses in his blog posts. Although [I believe] he has had Microsoft and Google products advertise on his site periodically, and his coverage of those companies has still been on his own terms.
jusben1369 12y ago
I think you have to ask yourself the fundamental question. How does John make a living? Perhaps he could move to a paid subscription model. That seems fraught with risk but it's true it's a possibility. But even then you pander to your paid audience vs the paid advertiser (if all your paid subscribers are Apple fans and you noticed a 10% subscription cancellation when you belittle the Apple Watch what happens to your behavior?) The next alternative is he relies on advertising. When there is a conflict of interest in advertising it's mostly around transparency (the site does legitimate and paid product and service reviews side by side and so you don't know what is paid content and what isn't) This approach though seems very transparent. The worse case scenario is a product or service he advertises becomes crappy (based on his backlog he wouldn't need to accept an upfront crappy product) and he doesn't allow them to sponsor again. The biggest crime is he holds off calling out said crappy product because at one time he took money from them. I'm not sure he'd do that and that would only be a real issue if JG was the sole or primary source of reviews for the service vs all the other channels that review products and give you a wide range of opinions to draw on if you need them. TL;DR: All commercial models involving information sharing are flawed so you have to deal in shades of gray and this seems good to me.
- underwater 12y ago
  Traditional journalism doesn't try and mix advertising and content to the level this does. This feels closer to BuzzFeed's infamous organic content (http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/12/buzzhome/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/12/buzzhome/) than it does to what a newspaper might do.
  - je42 12y ago
    That's very traditional. Most computer magazines f.e. are under so much pressure that a complete separation is difficult. Even the ones that still have a separation, are a little bit more gray in the sense, that they do special deals i.e. free software for their coverstory and so forth.
- astrange 12y ago
  > Perhaps he could move to a paid subscription model. It was on a paid subscription model before the current one. Loading the site was free, but you had to pay for the RSS feed. Or maybe it was that buying a shirt got you RSS feed access for a while? Don't quite remember now.
cmyr 12y ago
John has been sponsored by Google(1) and by Microsoft(2) both of which he has written some decidedly negative things about. I think he takes conflict of interest seriously, and has a strong division between his editorial and his advertising content. 1: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/08/10/ios-at-google http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/08/10/ios-at-google 2: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/04/20/windows-azure-mobile-services http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/04/20/windows-azure-mo...
- burger_moon 12y ago
  I feel like there's a big difference in talking negatively about a billion dollar company that pays for an advert and a small sub million dollar company. Would Microsoft even notice or care that he spoke critically about them once compared to a small startup that blew their advert money on his blog care?
- Kylekramer 12y ago
  Azure itself is pretty safe from Gruber's crosshairs. Google was less successful, but there is a common trend of companies paying their way into the good graces of Apple bloggers' inner circle (Squarespace, Backblaze, Everpix).
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    I'm sorry, but what you're implying is that these companies have sub-par products that unscrupulous writers have been willing to treat as well-made in exchange for cash payment. As someone who (very happily) uses both Backblaze and Squarespace I can safely say this is not the case, and that they're not just "buying their way into" bloggers' good graces. I'm pretty sure that if they're in anyone else's good graces, it's because they provide a great product with solid service at a decent price. It's absolutely not because they had to bribe people to overlook the fact that they weren't really any good. In essence, DF is an endorsement-based model. This is one where a justifiably trusted source uses their hard-won credibility to promote products that reinforce their credibility. It's pretty much the opposite of a model that allows people to "buy their way in". Indeed, that's the whole point. You can't buy your way in. If you don't have a decent product, you're not getting listed.
simonh 12y ago
On the other hand the advertising posts are very clearly indicated to be such, there's no attempt to actualy disguise them as editorial. Furthermore by explicitly posting endorsements with the other content he's drectly putting his own credibility on the line. If the advertised service is sub-par in any way it directly reflects on him.
jcurbo 12y ago
Jason Snell wrote an interesting article about his experience with an advertiser and sponsorships. He's running his own blog now (Six Colors) with a similar model to Gruber. http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/12/no-other-gatekeeper-but-me/ http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/12/no-other-gatekeeper-but-me...
username223 12y ago
For better and worse, it's the way things are going in the near future. People like Gruber and Alex Blumberg (Gimlet Media podcasts) have built up credibility, and are open about what is paid versus editorial, so the "native ads" are merely annoying rather than trust-destroying. Unfortunately, lots of people with a few page-views and more greed than sense will also try to get in on the action, and the web will be an even worse place.
collyw 12y ago
Grubers site is basically one big Apple ad from what I have read on it.

by jonas21 12y ago

dilap 12y ago

It's a valid concern, but honestly I think the distorting effects are probably much less than e.g., having to chase clickbait topics for CPM advertising or having Carlos Slim be your largest single investor, etc.

armandososa 12y ago
You piqued my curiosity. What's the Carlos Slim comment related to?
- gyardley 12y ago
  He's probably referring to the New York Times.
  - dilap 12y ago
    Yup.

Moto7451 12y ago

PBS and NPR have to deal with this issue every year and their solution is pretty simple. They report it as they would want to, mention that X Co sponsored them in the past/present, and don't take their advertising dollars for that piece.

jonas21 12y ago
There's a big difference between saying "this segment is sponsored by X Co" and letting X Co write their own endorsement that they can then quote as a testimonial from you.
- oddevan 12y ago
  If you're referring to Desk quoting Gruber on their home page, they quoted from Gruber's "thank you" post which, while it borrows a lot from the original sponsor-written post, is still written by Gruber himself.
  - saddington 12y ago
    Yeah, i felt good about using this quote but was definitely not going to use something that I wrote myself. ... because that would be super-lame.

mcphage 12y ago

> I'd rather not. It introduces a pretty big conflict of interest (for example, Gruber would probably think twice before writing something negative about a former sponsor when he's on the record endorsing them) Generally the companies that advertise on his site are companies that his readers would find useful, but generally aren't the kind of companies that he discusses in his blog posts. Although [I believe] he has had Microsoft and Google products advertise on his site periodically, and his coverage of those companies has still been on his own terms.

jusben1369 12y ago

I think you have to ask yourself the fundamental question. How does John make a living? Perhaps he could move to a paid subscription model. That seems fraught with risk but it's true it's a possibility. But even then you pander to your paid audience vs the paid advertiser (if all your paid subscribers are Apple fans and you noticed a 10% subscription cancellation when you belittle the Apple Watch what happens to your behavior?) The next alternative is he relies on advertising. When there is a conflict of interest in advertising it's mostly around transparency (the site does legitimate and paid product and service reviews side by side and so you don't know what is paid content and what isn't) This approach though seems very transparent. The worse case scenario is a product or service he advertises becomes crappy (based on his backlog he wouldn't need to accept an upfront crappy product) and he doesn't allow them to sponsor again. The biggest crime is he holds off calling out said crappy product because at one time he took money from them. I'm not sure he'd do that and that would only be a real issue if JG was the sole or primary source of reviews for the service vs all the other channels that review products and give you a wide range of opinions to draw on if you need them. TL;DR: All commercial models involving information sharing are flawed so you have to deal in shades of gray and this seems good to me.

underwater 12y ago
Traditional journalism doesn't try and mix advertising and content to the level this does. This feels closer to BuzzFeed's infamous organic content (http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/12/buzzhome/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/12/buzzhome/) than it does to what a newspaper might do.
- je42 12y ago
  That's very traditional. Most computer magazines f.e. are under so much pressure that a complete separation is difficult. Even the ones that still have a separation, are a little bit more gray in the sense, that they do special deals i.e. free software for their coverstory and so forth.
astrange 12y ago
> Perhaps he could move to a paid subscription model. It was on a paid subscription model before the current one. Loading the site was free, but you had to pay for the RSS feed. Or maybe it was that buying a shirt got you RSS feed access for a while? Don't quite remember now.

cmyr 12y ago

John has been sponsored by Google(1) and by Microsoft(2) both of which he has written some decidedly negative things about. I think he takes conflict of interest seriously, and has a strong division between his editorial and his advertising content. 1: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/08/10/ios-at-google http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/08/10/ios-at-google 2: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/04/20/windows-azure-mobile-services http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/04/20/windows-azure-mo...

burger_moon 12y ago
I feel like there's a big difference in talking negatively about a billion dollar company that pays for an advert and a small sub million dollar company. Would Microsoft even notice or care that he spoke critically about them once compared to a small startup that blew their advert money on his blog care?
Kylekramer 12y ago
Azure itself is pretty safe from Gruber's crosshairs. Google was less successful, but there is a common trend of companies paying their way into the good graces of Apple bloggers' inner circle (Squarespace, Backblaze, Everpix).
- alexqgb 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but what you're implying is that these companies have sub-par products that unscrupulous writers have been willing to treat as well-made in exchange for cash payment. As someone who (very happily) uses both Backblaze and Squarespace I can safely say this is not the case, and that they're not just "buying their way into" bloggers' good graces. I'm pretty sure that if they're in anyone else's good graces, it's because they provide a great product with solid service at a decent price. It's absolutely not because they had to bribe people to overlook the fact that they weren't really any good. In essence, DF is an endorsement-based model. This is one where a justifiably trusted source uses their hard-won credibility to promote products that reinforce their credibility. It's pretty much the opposite of a model that allows people to "buy their way in". Indeed, that's the whole point. You can't buy your way in. If you don't have a decent product, you're not getting listed.

simonh 12y ago

On the other hand the advertising posts are very clearly indicated to be such, there's no attempt to actualy disguise them as editorial. Furthermore by explicitly posting endorsements with the other content he's drectly putting his own credibility on the line. If the advertised service is sub-par in any way it directly reflects on him.

jcurbo 12y ago

Jason Snell wrote an interesting article about his experience with an advertiser and sponsorships. He's running his own blog now (Six Colors) with a similar model to Gruber. http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/12/no-other-gatekeeper-but-me/ http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/12/no-other-gatekeeper-but-me...

username223 12y ago

For better and worse, it's the way things are going in the near future. People like Gruber and Alex Blumberg (Gimlet Media podcasts) have built up credibility, and are open about what is paid versus editorial, so the "native ads" are merely annoying rather than trust-destroying. Unfortunately, lots of people with a few page-views and more greed than sense will also try to get in on the action, and the web will be an even worse place.

collyw 12y ago

Grubers site is basically one big Apple ad from what I have read on it.