Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think you get the conflict of interest issue, like, at all. Your example is sort of okay. However, its really easy to find examples that aren't okay from your own site.

1) http://mashable.com/2013/04/11/social-ad-revenue/

Ad revenue article sponsored by a marketing firm that sells a product in relation to that.

2) http://mashable.com/2011/11/18/hubspot-sponsored-post-1/

This is basically plugging what Hubspot is selling.

3) http://mashable.com/2010/12/15/sponsored-technology-500-list...

Here is another one that basically plugs itself.




I do get it; it's something that we're acutely aware of, and there's a lot of effort being put into improving the integrity and transparency of the whole affair. The first article is syndicated from ClickZ - they're one of our syndication partners, but I'm not sure what the criteria for syndication are. It's not actually clear that there was any sponsorship by BIA/Kelsey on it (I think that's who you're talking about?)

The other two examples are much worse, granted, but it's worth noting that the other two examples are almost 3+ years old at this point; we ran with that for a bit while trying to figure out native advertising, but the company has moved on from that kind of advertising. You'll also notice the giant [SPONSORED] in the headline, slug, and highly visible advertising disclaimers at the top and bottom of the post. There is no ambiguity about their "bought" status.


Alright. I'll break down the Clickz example since it seems the most relevant to your "current practices" at Mashable.

I honestly just googled "sponsored posts Mashable" and went down this list:

http://mashable.com/category/sponsored-post/

I didn't bother looking at the dates.

Clickz:

http://www.clickzlive.com/

http://www.clickzacademy.com/training.php

They sell information-oriented products for marketing and are reporting on the size of such markets. That is a huge, massive conflict of interest.

It is like me saying "Look at this huge market over there, here let me help you learn how to tap into it...for $199" and then publishing it as if it was a newsworthy article.

So you have a company that is pushing a product while simultaneously publishing articles related to the value of that product without editorial oversight.

Does that not seem like a conflict of interest to you?

Simply blindly syndicating that sort of thing is the same as native advertising imo.


Look at Mashable's own copy wrt sponsored advertising,

> Every brand is an expert in its field [1]

Which is patently false. We can say, "well they didn't mean every brand, that'd be ridiculous!" and yet, the integrity of their own copy doesn't hold ... which shows that they can't even be honest with themselves/partners with respect to being objective and honest in their content.

[1] http://mashable.com/advertise/desktop/#brandspeak


http://mashable.com/2013/08/16/hdhacks-recap/?demo=kcd83fh

Ya, that demo is just repeating a home depot marketing campaign.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: