How To Save Media Jason Ponti from Technology Review offers some suggestions as to how traditional print publishers might save themselves from becoming irrelevant.
posted by reenum on Oct 12, 2009 - 30 comments

The human network is the paradigm and the infrastructure which supports social software.
posted by zippy on Jun 25, 2007 - 16 comments

Sony writes 'article' for Salon. In an effort to find new revenue streams, Salon has published an ad/article written by Sony Corp. National Geographic and Parent Soup have also published ad/articles, though the New York Times said no. While the articles do not directly reference Sony products, the feature people who do fascinating things with technology... technology which, it just so happens, is advertised conveniently right next to the technology featuring passage. Is this sort of thing ever ethical? If so, what sort of disclosures are necessary. Clearly the ad/articles are intended to appear to be regular content.
posted by 4easypayments on Dec 2, 2002 - 29 comments

MSNBC taking advantage of high site traffic; FORCING ads. Personally I'm speechless. I think every other major site out there (no doubt the crippled Yahoo also) is doing this oor will be in the upcoming hours.
posted by HoldenCaulfield on Sep 13, 2001 - 24 comments

Kottke.org, now with x10 ads. Sad, but true. I don't like them, but I suppose if you need the money... Look in the source for confirmation:

var url = "http://ads.x10.com/bluefish/bf23.htm";
var domain = "kottke.org";

at least the girl in the camera ad is kinda cute.
posted by moz on Jun 8, 2001 - 87 comments

Is this a typo? Salon's David Talbot in the NYT: "'A lot of our audience pays $300 a year to join National Public Radio and they don't have to pay anything,' he said. As early as next year, Mr. Talbot said, Salon hopes to impose a fee of $75 to $150 a year to read any of its site with ads." Now, I would have read that last sentence as "to read any of its site without ads", but perhaps I'm just being naive.
posted by bumppo on May 1, 2001 - 30 comments

Salon's new strategy: make the banner ads AS ANNOYING AS HUMANLY FUCKING POSSIBLE. Now it's either the subscription model or horrifying Flash ads that take up more column inches than the articles. Are they on crack, or merely dumb?
posted by solistrato on Mar 21, 2001 - 42 comments

'Is media bias real?', part two: Left-leaning media criticism folks FAIR have produced a report detailing some examples of of publishers, advertisers, and government officials killing stories they don't like and placing stories they do. What about the Chinese Wall between the business of news and the actual newsgathering? To quote a CBS news producer on the distinction between entertainment and news, "That line was over a long, long time ago....That line is long gone."
posted by snarkout on Feb 25, 2001 - 18 comments

Is this annoying to anyone else? I usually get most of my news from either ABCnews.com or CNN.com, then this morning I noticed that every time I load ABCnews, an annoying ad banner pops up for AT&T over the browser toolbar. I know that big sites have used popups before (usually as announcements or something else), but an ad popup on such a major site seems like an even further blurring of that line between media and advertising. I guess I'm switching news sources.
posted by almostcool on Nov 28, 2000 - 18 comments

Salon gives in. Back to readability, baby.
posted by jaybarrow on Jun 1, 2000 - 8 comments

Stupid new marketing word of the day: "Advertorial" (spotted on this NY Times page). Here's a screenshot - what exactly are they trying to say? Do their advertisements now contain editorial copy that should help shoppers make a more informed decision, or are they just trying to fool us into thinking these advertisements have more credibility because they are "editorialized"? (disclaimer: I hate marketing BS)
posted by mathowie on May 31, 2000 - 14 comments