lol "2K Games provided a flight from Chicago to Baltimore and accommodation for two nights so that Ars could participate in the preview opportunity for Civilization VII. Ars does not accept paid editorial content."
-
lol "2K Games provided a flight from Chicago to Baltimore and accommodation for two nights so that Ars could participate in the preview opportunity for Civilization VII. Ars does not accept paid editorial content."
-
CoffeeGeekreplied to Brooke Vibber :blobcatcoffee: on last edited by
@brooke do you consider this "paid editorial content"?
-
Brooke Vibber :blobcatcoffee:replied to CoffeeGeek on last edited by
@coffeegeek i consider it part of the paid-review-industrial-complex, at least
it's not like it's the worst offender
-
CoffeeGeekreplied to Brooke Vibber :blobcatcoffee: last edited by
@brooke So I asked the question because in all honesty, I think consumers of content (like you and millions of others) sometimes don't realise the costs and time associated with delivering the kind of content you and others would like to be reading.
I can give one example: Back in 2010, my travel budget for CoffeeGeek was well over $14,000 for one year (I single out that year because it was the highest year for travel costs we've had). I most definitely did not see that back in terms of revenue for the website. Certainly not directly. We don't sell anything on the website, don't have a product we charge consumers of our content for. Our only revenue was from directly managed and hosted advertisers. Advertisers are okay with traffic, but what they really want is clicks and clicks that result in purchases of the things they sell.
But the vast majority of my travel expenses resulted in content that, while of interest to our readers, didn't actually drive sales of goods. It provided education, opinion, information on emerging trends, and reportage from events.
We, as a business, lost money that year. It was literally the first year we had a loss.
So we had to scale back expenses. Travel was one of them. We also made a shift in policy: we had to find ways to make the cost of travel (or purchasing goods to review) economically feasible for the website. At the very least, a net zero expense.
This included accepting paid travel expenses from manufacturers who wanted to showcase their products at events. We had a very clear agreement that, in return for the REPORTAGE (not promotion, but reporting) on the products, we would accept that financial help, but it would in no way influence what we wrote about the products or services. I'm sure Ars is exactly the same way. They're not some IG influencer looking for swag.
And keep in mind, while the companies may pay the travel / hotel, the website is still paying the writer, and for their time, as well as the writer's collective years of effort, building expertise.
I bristle at times when people just automatically assume any and all content is "bought and paid for" in instances like this. It's Ars Technica, not some "HEY GUYS!!!" YT or IG influencer who is looking to build their swag closet and get kickbacks for promoting products they clearly know next to nothing about.
Okay, rant over. But I would ask that you don't just automatically think the worst of long standing content CREATORS who are trying to inform, educate, and entertain you. It's okay to be sceptical at times, but just don't automatically assume the worst.
-
Brooke Vibber :blobcatcoffee:replied to CoffeeGeek last edited by
@coffeegeek yeah I'm just being snarky
In an ideal world journalism of all sorts would be sufficiently funded for consistent independent coverage without relying on vendors to hopefully not retaliate on the next thing if they don't like your coverage, and you wouldn't have to make compromises like that that might, or might not, affect the quality or extensiveness of coverage.
We don't live in that world.
-
CoffeeGeekreplied to Brooke Vibber :blobcatcoffee: last edited by [email protected]
@brooke I can tell you, based on personal experience, that there are a lot of vendors (not so many manufacturers - the vendors are the worst offenders of this) who, if you do a negative or less than glowing review, will pull their advertising revenue from your website.
It's happened to me with well over twenty times over the years. It happened as recently as six months ago again (the supply stock has dwindled).
Yet we still give full, unvarnished, objective reviews, to this day.
I've been a long, long time Ars Technica reader; I know what they too are going through