Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 261 posts

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#211

Post by erickhill »

cs702 wrote: post #122
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #95

Without delving into the specifics of Scientology, I am reminded of a grellas quotation: "The most valuable asset of a lawyer is his reputation." This applies to some journalistic endeavors as well. In some cases, I seek out the thoughts of those whose facts are unreliable, because their opinions are interesting or novel. But just as often, I seek out long-form, descriptive pieces to learn what reliable people believ…

Judging by this sponsored story, it seems that the people running The Atlantic have already decided to turn this august publication into an "interesting" brand. It's a shame. What doesn't make sense to me is that The Atlantic supposedly became profitable a couple of years ago -- see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic.... -- which, if true, means they didn't actually need to do this!

As with almost all publications, especially those with a deep print legacy, there is an old-biz back-slapper expectation that whatever you did last year that you copied makes you a genius. And you need to meet and beat at X% quarter over quarter. You'll have about a 6-month sliding window of wiggle room before you start notice the raised eyebrows of surprise when people see you in your cube.

After a few gimmicks run their course (e.g. using teams and friends of teams from The Atlantic to "digg" stories on HN for you to uptick visits while pages per visit plummet) in about 6 months the entire sales and/or product teams perform brutal "reshuffles".

For those in the vicious swirl, it is common practice to have a nicely fleshed out LinkedIn account at one's immediate disposal.

The sad irony is that it is the print medium and its advertising legacy (much like TV) brings in much larger sums of revenue overall. But the overhead costs overtake it dramatically. These days it feels very much like vinyl: better quality, but the law of diminishing returns is in full swing.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#212

Post by javert »

The Atlantic has had a consistent subjectivist and egalitarian-nihilist bias, to the point that I don't read them unless I want to debate and argue and grind my teeth.

So, this isn't as far out of character as everyone else seems to think.

I don't understand the connection between Scientology and the other stuff I mentioned, but even before this, it could not be said that this publication had integrity or practiced honesty.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#213

Post by colanderman »

tokenadult wrote: post #104

I have been one of the biggest submitters of Atlantic links to HN in the past year (and, no, The Atlantic doesn't pay me to post links) and I will now cease submitting Atlantic links. I used to submit a lot of Atlantic links to my Facebook wall too, also never, ever being paid to do so, and I will cease posting Atlantic links there too. And I think I had better write to the editors of The Atlantic, like James Fallows…

The Tampa Bay Times has a good long-running series on Scientology as well: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#214

Post by freejoe76 »

dm8 wrote: post #140
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #95

Without delving into the specifics of Scientology, I am reminded of a grellas quotation: "The most valuable asset of a lawyer is his reputation." This applies to some journalistic endeavors as well. In some cases, I seek out the thoughts of those whose facts are unreliable, because their opinions are interesting or novel. But just as often, I seek out long-form, descriptive pieces to learn what reliable people believ…

These type of ads are known as "advertorials". They are not new (read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial ). They are new in digital realm. In print magazines/newspapers, we are also used to the concept of "advertising supplement". We are in early days of "advertorials" in digital world and they should mature over the time. They are ought to become better.

Typically advertorials use a distinct font and possibly rules (as in borders, lines) to differentiate itself from straight editorial. Sure, we know the difference. And yes, it actually does feel different, and yes that matters.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#215

Post by flexxaeon »

Interesting.... in the last minute I (coincidentally) watched as they pulled down the page and replaced it with:

We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#219

Post by hayksaakian »

freejoe76 wrote: post #214
dm8 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These type of ads are known as "advertorials". They are not new (read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial ). They are new in digital realm. In print magazines/newspapers, we are also used to the concept of "advertising supplement". We are in early days of "advertorials" in digital world and they should mature over the time. They are ought to become better.

Typically advertorials use a distinct font and possibly rules (as in borders, lines) to differentiate itself from straight editorial. Sure, we know the difference. And yes, it actually does feel different, and yes that matters.

Iirc, there are even official guides or laws about distinguishing an advertorial from content.

In TIME magazine, each page is clearly marked 'advertisement' at the top, and the fonts and styling are typically distinct from normal articles.

Re: The Atlantic posts sponsored Scientology story, moderates comments

#220

Post by transitionality »

minimaxir wrote: post #216

The post has been removed: We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads. "Subsequent comment threads"? You don't say.

They're most likely talking about the article's own comment thread, as opposed to discussion across the web.
Post reply on HN