Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

with the closing of many newspapers, etc, advertisers are desperate to find new ways of reaching the people..... the dog and pony show is panicking, folks.

unfortunately, i think advertising is responsible for destroying our society, but that's yet another story. the meaningless pursuit of crap that we don't really need permeates our every day life, our economy is based on it.

but, like the hole in the ozone, it's a fact of life. though, not a pretty one.

now they're asking jay leno to talk up the sponsors instead of showing actual commercials.... like old time testimonials.

if people refuse to buy these products, maybe they'll eventually fade away like the big auto companies.

@HeartofGlass Thanks for starting this thread. I'll repeat what I said in the other thread -- I'm genuinely eager for feedback on this topic, and will keep iterating based on what people say. But SE is possible because of our sponsors, and they want to be involved in the discussion and we think if done right, it can be beneficial for the entire community. This was our first try, and seems like the feedback is mixed so far. My guess is what is bothering people most about the sponsored talk topic is that it included a message from the sponsor in addition to the question. But as NYCEater described, if it were a perfectly neutral question that could have been posted by anyone, would you still find it as unacceptable?

What bothered me about the initial post was that it was such a generic question that was posed. Not that the question wasn't important, it is very important but it was so obviously just thrown in there in order to use it as a reason to post advertising in a Talk thread. You want to ask something more specific, food related, something that is typical in all of these Talk posts then OK by me. This was just an Epic Fail...but you guys run the site and you have to have sponsors, we understand that! It didn't make me want to rush out and buy....wait, I don't even recall what the product was. Oops.

I understand the need for banner ads and giveaways, but the Talk section is supposed to be a forum for readers to chat. That's it. It's not a place for a sponsor to push their latest green-washing campaign.

I don't even see why a question about recycling would be posted on this site. That's like someone asking everyone their favorite brand of shoes, and justifying the post as food-related by saying they own a restaurant.

Why not just start a new forum called "Sponsored Topics" where Sunchip type posts could be located? If the day comes where I have to weed through too many sponsored topics in the talk forum to find interesting posts from "real" people I can see me losing interest in SE altogether. I don't have time to weed. I frequent the talk forum to interact with real people not corporations.

Where is this sun chip thread? Did I miss it?

Jerzee - Here...

http://www.seriouseats.com/talk/2009/05/from-our-sponsor-a-small-step-to-help-the-planet.html

Let me first acknowledge that we all realize that websites like SE don't run themselves for free. We don't pay to join, so....someone has to pay the bills. Kudos to the SE team for thinking outside the box to find innovative ways to find sources of ad revenue. The reality is that No Revenue = No SE site.

But...I have to say....I didn't like the manner in which the SunChips® post was inserted into the Talk Section. I think what many of us object to is that out of the blue, there was an advertisement, disguised as a question, inserted into the flow of discussion.

The question was contrived in order to market the green initiatives by SunChips® and FritoLay inc. What's next "Where do you find the cheapest groceries?" sponsored by wal-mart or "What's your favorite salad dressing?" sponsored by Kraft.

As has been pointed out over and over in the talk section....this is an open & welcoming community of food lovers. When an ad/post/topic is inserted from a to simply promote a paying advertiser, it comes off as disingenuous.

Here are a few thoughts on how to make this revenue source legitimate, relevant & part of the community:

1. Find a sponsor or sponsors for the long term. e.g. say you could get Kitchen Aid to sponsor a weekly post on baking. The post could be "what are you baking for mom for mother's day?" Timely, relevant & non-contrived questions.

Then....

2. Drop the headline "From our Sponsor:"
3. Drop the "This post brough to you by X-Y-Z"
4. Limit the sponsors marketing message to a single sentence with a link.
5. Rather than posted by the serious eats team, use the sponsor's name with [SE Advertiser] or some other designation.
6. Explain to the community, that the said sponsor is a new member of the serious eats family....or...and existing sponsor is going to participate in a weekly...monthly...whatever....discussion of "uses for cast iron cookware". i.e. make them a member, albeit one that writes you a check.

We will all get that they are a paying advertiser/sponsor, but either make it a blatant Ad (with the word ADVERTISEMENT) or make them a member of the community.

I'd also create a new talk section "sponsor forums" or something.

Regardless, I think most of us realize you are trying new things to maintain the bottom line....and thus the continuation of SE.

Thanks!

While I certainly won't leave SE over it, I won't be contributing to any of those threads because I don't like the idea of my words being used to promote a product--I would hate if one of my comments prompted someone to buy a product, against my will. Again, that is just my personal choice, but I wanted to start a topic just to feel out what others thought--and yes, of course, I realize that SE 'gotta eat' and doesn't run for free. But I tend to think of comments sections as 'advertising-free space' at least for professional organizations.

see? that's what makes this place very appealing....ed.

probably the last democracy on earth!

I think the animosity towards the advertisers is interesting. The ads pay the bills. If not for the advertisers, sites like this wouldn't exist. Either that, or we'd all be paying a subscription for the pleasure of accessing the site.

As long as the sponsorships are clear, I don't see any problem with it. Like any other topic, if it's interesting, I'll post, and if it's not interesting, I'll ignore it. I find this sort of thing less annoying than the shills that stop by and say, "I found this wonderful product." Part of the problem I have with those people is that they're trying to get exposure for their products without paying for that exposure. If Crisco or carrot farmers want to pay for a mention, it's better than having employees stop by and ask questions related to the products.

Other than the fact that this is within the talk area, it's not that much different than other ads on the site. And the banner and sidebar ads are visible in Talk, so it's not like this was virgin territory before.

Think about the weekly book giveaways and other contests. This is almost the same thing. Except that this is just a talk topic and there's no prize at the end. And this first question wasn't hawking a specific product, where the contests are. Heck, I've bought cookbooks because I saw them here and didn't win. So in that case the advertising worked. And I see no problem with that.

When it comes to something like Sun Chips promoting their green efforts, I'd rather see them buy some ad space and help pay the bills here, rather than just flood the SE email boxes with press releases and links to YouTube videos in the hopes that they'll get some free press over what they're doing.

Saying that you'll avoid buying a product because they dared to put an ad on a site is more damaging to the site than the advertiser. The advertiser will find other ways to get the word out, but the site needs to be able to attract advertisers in order to survive. I'm not saying that I love ads, but the reality is that the advertisers have to be there to pay for the content.

And there are times when I appreciate an ad because it does introduce me to a new product or it gives me new information about the company. Just because an ad exists, we don't have to like what it says, or act on the offer. But I can't see the sense in boycotting a company that likes this site enough to throw some money this way.

I don't mind a question about Sun Chips because they're pretty good as salty snacks go.

But so help me God, if I ever see a sponsored link about LaChoy canned Chinese food - I'm outta here. ;)

@ Chiff - Or Chicken in a Can?? : )

Let the products be worthy at the very least.

@chiff, if LaChoy wants to sponsor my comments, I'll take the money and run...of course, they'd have to pay by the word. :-)

@hungrychristel, in a good market, a publication might be able to be picky about what advertising it accepts, but when the market is bad, I think there's less ability to pick and choose. Instead of it being "we love these guys" it becomes more of "we don't hate these guys too much." And I really think there's a difference between a straight-up ad and an endorsement. I doubt that everyone at SE loves every product that's advertised here.

With all due respect, this is the internets, people. Everything you post to this website is completely public at all times, and I'M SURE is mined/used by companies constantly. I think SE did a nice job of making the topic very clearly different from the other threads, so that no one was tricked into commenting, which would have resulted in being hypnotized into a zombie and running immediately to the nearest grocery establishment to purchase Sun Chips.

What it sounds like to me is that people are most upset that what ordinarily feels like an intimate little chat/thread area has now been infiltrated by a big business. Would opinions be different if the post was sponsored by the local CSA or a popular green company? Perhaps.

If the threads are kept infrequent and remain clearly differentiated from normal commenters, I say: in these tough economic times, I applaud SE for finding a way to make the paper.

(All of that said, I would be happy to never see another WalMart ad on here.)

i knew someone would start this thread as soon as that advertisement hit my rss feed.

it doesn't bother me at all since it is clearly marked as paid advertising. if i didn't like it i would find another group food blog to spend my zero dollars at.

i'm not sure why blogs doing this always starts a brouhaha since it's pretty standard at this point. the real problem is when advertising is presented as editorial content, which clearly isn't the case here.

@brooke, the "home" comparison I'd make is that it's kind of like the newspaper coming with packages of cereal bundled in the plastic wrap that the paper is delivered in. Instead of being a flat ad in the paper that I'm used to, it's a package that I can choose to throw away immediately, open and eat, or share with whoever happens to be in the kitchen at the time. It's certainly different in form than the ads in the paper or on TV, but it's still the advertiser paying the media to deliver content. In that way, the talk ads are no different than the rest of the ads, except it's different placement. And really, the talk ads are a lot like the cookbook giveaways in that they're relying on reader interaction rather than just sitting in the banner.

Or maybe it's like a guest who brings up their business during a social occasion. Sometimes that's fine and sometimes it's seriously annoying. If someone's business is interesting to talk about, I'm fine with that. I might even do business with them in the future. But if they start off by asking me what my credit rating is or what I'm paying for life insurance, it's time to fake a seizure.

I'm not saying it is the end of the world. But unlike banner advertisements, despite the label 'from our sponsor' it does look far more like a regular 'talk' post than other advertisements. Like I said, I will simply not click those posts or respond to them, and truthfully 'stealth' advertisements make me less apt to buy a product, no matter how green or crunchy they may be.

I'm not bitching about it, I just wanted to air my views. I'm not staging a hissy and running away if 'things don't go my way,' I just wanted to discuss it in a mature fashion, that all. I have no beef (or bacon) with adverts, I think they should just be clearly displayed--at very least in a different font that is more obvious before pointing and clicking.

I must admit I commented before going to the link provided ^ above. I thought the content of the topic was kind of cheesy, like Sun Chips is jumping on the SaveThe Planet bandwagon v. being legitimately concerned.

To be honest, the topic reminded me of all those lame 9/11 references built into TV shows shortly after the terrorist attacks. TV shows tried to wedge 9/11 into every possibly plotline, whether or not it was appropos.

Sun Chips are salty snacks not health food, though they try to paint them that way. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably opt for a Sun Chip over a potato chip because I think they taste better. I'm not deluding myself into thinking it's health food. I would have preferred Sun Chips sponsor a Talk topic about how we feel about Sun Chips v. a completely unrelated-to-the-product topic, no matter how noble.