Branding Vice
notvice.com
Branding Vice
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Branding Vice
#2[deleted]
Re: Branding Vice
#3What a trashy, incongruent rant of an article.
Regardless, a vast majority of their content doesn't include any reference to marketable brands. If the OP is accusing them of being a PR news agency, I have seen very little evidence of it. Questioning wether they are a business trying to earn a profit is incredibly naive.
However, if I was to criticize anything about their journalistic integrity, it's the tendency for their reporters to inject too much personal opinion. Though they do often succeed at concluding their pieces in a way that leaves the consumer considering multiple perspectives.
We don't have nearly enough (imperfect or not) media companies pursuing the types of stories Vice does. Given their willingness to publish exceptionable stories, it's no wonder there are significant attempts to discredit them.
Re: Branding Vice
#4Is it "injecting" if the content was native-advertising to begin with?
Re: Branding Vice
#5I call it the "Wired Style".
Re: Branding Vice
#6What a trashy, incongruent rant of an article. Regardless, a vast majority of their content doesn't include any reference to marketable brands. If the OP is accusing them of being a PR news agency, I have seen very little evidence of it. Questioning wether they are a business trying to earn a profit is incredibly naive. However, if I was to criticize anything about their journalistic integrity, it's the tendency for…
The complaints in the article look valid to me? Is the data wrong or made up?
Its been very blatant since the early days of print that advertisers either received additional editorial coverage or had plausible problems ignored by writers. The most explicit is the automative review articles which describe a technical object with near poetry. Of course, car companies are a huge advertiser for most newspapers and magazines.
So Vice produces some very edgy well researched content about topics which push in to the land of the dark things big corporations do and are involved in such as slave labor in the Middle East. Of course companies that are worried Vice is the next 60 Minutes sign up and fork over money in excess of what programatic buying would dictate the market rate is.
If advertisers are "buying" native content that has to be disclosed - period - yet because it is hardly enforced almost no one cares.
Re: Branding Vice
#7Is it "injecting" if the content was native-advertising to begin with?
If it was it wasn't labeled correctly. That said, it appears that many of the examples even six or seven years old; before even the FTC suggested labeling guidelines came out (and the actual rules only came out in December).
Reading more of this site the author comes not as having a very personal vendetta against Vice (although there's not really a hint as to what has set it off). I'm very skeptical of the underlying agenda here.
Re: Branding Vice
#8What a trashy, incongruent rant of an article. Regardless, a vast majority of their content doesn't include any reference to marketable brands. If the OP is accusing them of being a PR news agency, I have seen very little evidence of it. Questioning wether they are a business trying to earn a profit is incredibly naive. However, if I was to criticize anything about their journalistic integrity, it's the tendency for…
A handful of Vice articles I've read over the years have touched on my personal sphere - people or causes I'm directly involved with. Their fact checking is actually quite poor. They get tons of easily verified stuff wrong. Moreover, I've seen at least two instances where such errors prevented a brand/product/person from being perceived in a negative light. Some of their articles have been wrong to the point of the entire article being incorrect (like their 'first clown escort' story).
I'm sure they do or have done some quality journalism, but the amount of bullshit they do shovel leaves them suspect as a whole to me.
Re: Branding Vice
#9The author of this article has a serious axe to grind with VICE which overshadows the few good points he makes. The photoshopped pictures of VICE executives with consumer brands are embarrassingly bad.
It does bother me that VICE sometimes over-editorializes some of its stories and does some truth stretching. Overall, I think the quality stories are worthwhile and I can just roll my eyes at the misinformative ones, e.g. many on motherboard.vice.com.
I clicked on another entry in this ranty blog and found a hilarious VICE parody done by the Onion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHvrirXi5Ds .
Re: Branding Vice
#10What a trashy, incongruent rant of an article. Regardless, a vast majority of their content doesn't include any reference to marketable brands. If the OP is accusing them of being a PR news agency, I have seen very little evidence of it. Questioning wether they are a business trying to earn a profit is incredibly naive. However, if I was to criticize anything about their journalistic integrity, it's the tendency for…
A handful of Vice articles I've read over the years have touched on my personal sphere - people or causes I'm directly involved with. Their fact checking is actually quite poor. They get tons of easily verified stuff wrong. Moreover, I've seen at least two instances where such errors prevented a brand/product/person from being perceived in a negative light. Some of their articles have been wrong to the point of the e…
Yes their fact-checking is really poor in some articles. Their tech reporting is awful. I love their international stories, such as the North Korea special. Do you know of any inaccuracies in these stories?