I built this website. From scratch. Including the servers.
Heya Steve! I marinated my brain in rosé when we were dining in Cannes, but I'm pretty sure we discussed this topic then too. Whomever decided to pay by the eyeball started us down this slope, greased up by greed.
And they have the gall to call us the evil ones. Like I just explained to my daughter, advertising is the only communication that it is illegal to lie in. Everything we put out there has been vetted by legal teams thrice. You can't say the same for the evening news where they claimed the Asiana pilot name was "Captain Sum Tin Wong".
Like you said, If we want this shit to stop, marketers have to stop funding it. - the social marketing trend has already birthed at least ten new awards, now lets move on to the the social media buying. Place your ads in quality media dear brands, not magazines that print disturbing and entirely false rape stories that bring a fraternity down, or websites that are blackmail tools for a presumably deranged Texan porn star.
That's exactly it though, what Lucia Moses touches on is correct "the threshold has gotten higher", and indeed it has. For the past ten years media places like Gawker have flourished, and so have their standards. Now, everyone was OK with the standards being brought down as long as the eyeballs came to town, but how long can this fall really continue? How long do you want your carefully vetted, legally checked, thrice, brand - next to a blog post written by an intern who gets $12 per post and still thinks Mao & Che are the coolest people?
Alert: Now that Denton has removed the post and given us a non-apology to top all non-apologies, the discussions has suddenly shifted from when to un-publish something instead of when to not publish something. This statement from Gawker editorial staff calling the take down of the post an "unprecedented breach of the firewall", shows that the staff was against removing the post. " Our opinions on the post are not unanimous but we are united in objecting to editorial decisions being made by a majority of non-editorial managers. Disagreements about editorial judgment are matters to be resolved by editorial employees. We condemn the takedown in the strongest possible terms."
I'll also note that Gawker has always been this way, the entire blogging house has been the "punk publicists" and prided themselves in that from the get-go. The pay-per-hits forces their writers to go for the most salacious of angles - fuck fact checking - while undermining writers salaries in general. In 2008 Gizmodo were banned for life from CES, and they were proud of it! (Archived link) "When did journalists become the protectors of corporations? " they asked while they proved themselves to be the biggest Egos in the room clicking off TV's at a presentation and wasting the audiences time. Gawker has unfortunately been the source and inspiration for the click-model journalism, dragging former journalistic flagships down to their level as everyone clamours for the quickest hit. I say quick because the way Google works, first out with the story wins even if it's the shortest paragraph, and is rewarded by top hit on Google News. But you get what you pay for as they say, and the only way we pay for this is by clicking on it.
(If you would like to avoid paying with clicks I can vouch for the code in GGBlocker, a chrome add-on that redirects you to an archive page instead of Gawker and the likes. I read the source at Github and it's very simple, a specific list of publications will be automatically redirected to archive.today - if you want you can download the source and add your own list.)
Look at Perez Hilton, of all people, taking the high road. (And I notice that all of Gawkers writers have verified Twitter. Interesting)
@jordansarge And THIS is the kind of person you enabled in a blackmail attempt! pic.twitter.com/NMG2nXqHKi
— Perez Hilton (@PerezHilton) July 17, 2015
Yeah, I have to agree with Adam, if the message was a "changing of the guards" of sorts, with the younger women taking over from the well known faces, it's not very well directed at all because that story is not well told. I'm sure that was justified on paper/in the deck - but it's not seen here other than young women playing with well known older sports celebs. You could read that as "they're inspiring the young women" or whatever.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
