Comments on: What Happens When They Get It Wrong? http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong Web 2 and Social Media News and Reviews Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:27:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: How to Buy Your Way Into the Conversation « The SiliconANGLE http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-23816 How to Buy Your Way Into the Conversation « The SiliconANGLE Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:19:54 +0000 #comment-23816 [...] course, while the thrust of his article was entirely off-base (as noted by both Allen Stern and myself), this type of sponsored posting almost always garners major evil-eyes when it’s not [...] [...] course, while the thrust of his article was entirely off-base (as noted by both Allen Stern and myself), this type of sponsored posting almost always garners major evil-eyes when it’s not [...]

]]> By: In-Stream Twitter Advertising: Does It Work? http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22664 In-Stream Twitter Advertising: Does It Work? Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:58:16 +0000 #comment-22664 [...] Marshall originally attributed the ads to major companies, which Allen Stern at Centernetworks pointed out was incorrect: the ads highlighted for companies like Apple were affiliate ads (RWW has since amended the [...] [...] Marshall originally attributed the ads to major companies, which Allen Stern at Centernetworks pointed out was incorrect: the ads highlighted for companies like Apple were affiliate ads (RWW has since amended the [...]

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22079 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22079 marshall has one goal - get pageviews marshall has one goal – get pageviews

]]> By: Carsten Pötter http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22080 Carsten Pötter Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22080 You mention many aspects of what is wrong with tech blogging these days, Allen. Though, the trend of pushing stories as quickly as possible is not new. Often there is no research by writers, both of small and big blogs. Often they just repeat press releases. Blogs linking to the RWW story without adding any additional information proves that point. Regarding Marshall, he usually knows his stuff and he is one of the few tech bloggers I regularly read these days. The problem with the Magpie story is, that companies have lost control about their promotion. And that's bad. So the story sheds some light on that aspect as well. You mention many aspects of what is wrong with tech blogging these days, Allen. Though, the trend of pushing stories as quickly as possible is not new. Often there is no research by writers, both of small and big blogs. Often they just repeat press releases. Blogs linking to the RWW story without adding any additional information proves that point.

Regarding Marshall, he usually knows his stuff and he is one of the few tech bloggers I regularly read these days. The problem with the Magpie story is, that companies have lost control about their promotion. And that’s bad. So the story sheds some light on that aspect as well.

]]> By: centernetworks http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22081 centernetworks Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22081 <p> That's why I said delete or completely reworked to salvage your point. Although the idea about companies losing control over their promotion has gone on for as long as the Internet has been around and I am sure even before then. </p> <p> I agree on your assessment of Marshall as well. </p> That’s why I said delete or completely reworked to salvage your point. Although the idea about companies losing control over their promotion has gone on for as long as the Internet has been around and I am sure even before then.

I agree on your assessment of Marshall as well.

]]> By: Carsten Pötter http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22082 Carsten Pötter Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22082 Yes, the story should be reworked. No disagreement here. :) Yes, the story should be reworked. No disagreement here. :)

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22083 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22083 Seen this before. I worked with Marshall on a story; he refused to provide a correction even after a major print source (which was his source) formally retracted. There's no harm in admitting a mistake -- especially when your source misled you. But if your ego won't allow that to happen, well, your days as a credible reporter are numbered. Eventually people do notice. Seen this before. I worked with Marshall on a story; he refused to provide a correction even after a major print source (which was his source) formally retracted.

There’s no harm in admitting a mistake — especially when your source misled you. But if your ego won’t allow that to happen, well, your days as a credible reporter are numbered. Eventually people do notice.

]]> By: Michael Fidler http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22084 Michael Fidler Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22084 After my initial reaction to the story, I went back and read the comments.(Approx 75 at the time). I'm glad I did! Besides being enlightening, they were easily the most interesting part of the post. It would be nice if I knew a little more about how affiliate advertising works, but I get the gist of it:-) After my initial reaction to the story, I went back and read the comments.(Approx 75 at the time). I’m glad I did! Besides being enlightening, they were easily the most interesting part of the post. It would be nice if I knew a little more about how affiliate advertising works, but I get the gist of it:-)

]]> By: Rob Friedman http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22085 Rob Friedman Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22085 Well, I still have a problem with any company which would willingly allow it's affiliates to do stupid crap in this manner, and not speak out against it. Really why should they care? I'm pretty sure these companies made something off this, at least 1 person must have clicked on one of the links, made a purchase, and brought profit to the company and affiliate. I don't want to hear a company say, "It's not my fault." Especially if they made any money in that method. Affiliate programs are the new Pink Contracts for SPAM. Well, I still have a problem with any company which would willingly allow it’s affiliates to do stupid crap in this manner, and not speak out against it.

Really why should they care? I’m pretty sure these companies made something off this, at least 1 person must have clicked on one of the links, made a purchase, and brought profit to the company and affiliate. I don’t want to hear a company say, “It’s not my fault.” Especially if they made any money in that method. Affiliate programs are the new Pink Contracts for SPAM.

]]> By: centernetworks http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22086 centernetworks Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22086 what do you mean "willingly" ? trust me, all of the large companies I've dealt with hate dealing with affiliates who spam. what do you mean "willingly" ? trust me, all of the large companies I’ve dealt with hate dealing with affiliates who spam.

]]> By: Rob Friedman http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22087 Rob Friedman Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22087 Sure they say they "Hate" it, but really they're happy their Brand or name is out there in anyway and they are not exactly liable. They may not have actually said "go SPAM people", but they haven't publicly in a large forum or Ad spoken out about it or all the bad press surrounding the story. So ya, they are willingly letting things perpetrate and become a larger story, rather than stopping the actions cold in their tracks. Sure they say they “Hate” it, but really they’re happy their Brand or name is out there in anyway and they are not exactly liable. They may not have actually said “go SPAM people”, but they haven’t publicly in a large forum or Ad spoken out about it or all the bad press surrounding the story. So ya, they are willingly letting things perpetrate and become a larger story, rather than stopping the actions cold in their tracks.

]]> By: Marshall http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22088 Marshall Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22088 Allen, just about every company in tech watches twitter for mentions of their name. They knew about this long before i did. I consider you a friend but i think you're just complaining because some of these shady ways to make a buck appeal to you. Im going offline for the weekend but would be happy to discuss with you on monday. Maybe we should do a point counterpoint post re responsibility for affiliates Allen, just about every company in tech watches twitter for mentions of their name. They knew about this long before i did. I consider you a friend but i think you’re just complaining because some of these shady ways to make a buck appeal to you. Im going offline for the weekend but would be happy to discuss with you on monday. Maybe we should do a point counterpoint post re responsibility for affiliates

]]> By: Erik Sherman http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22089 Erik Sherman Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22089 Allen, why do you assume that I didn't check the links before posting the article? I was clicking through on many. Are there differences in last numbers for something like Box.net? Yup - and don't you think an advertiser or Magpie would want to track which ones were effective? So how do you *know* that they are third party affiliates? Furthermore, as someone else noted, it doesn't matter. The affiliates are part of the comapnies' marketing strategies. If it bothered the companies, they could send a cease and desist to Magpie. If they don't, then they're supporting the activity. Or are you actually saying that companies like Apple, Adobe, Kodak, and Cisco don't have people checking to see how their brands are being used on Twitter and checking the sources of traffic for pages on their sites? I've been in and around the industry and business in general to believe that for a minute. Allen, why do you assume that I didn’t check the links before posting the article? I was clicking through on many. Are there differences in last numbers for something like Box.net? Yup – and don’t you think an advertiser or Magpie would want to track which ones were effective? So how do you *know* that they are third party affiliates?

Furthermore, as someone else noted, it doesn’t matter. The affiliates are part of the comapnies’ marketing strategies. If it bothered the companies, they could send a cease and desist to Magpie. If they don’t, then they’re supporting the activity. Or are you actually saying that companies like Apple, Adobe, Kodak, and Cisco don’t have people checking to see how their brands are being used on Twitter and checking the sources of traffic for pages on their sites? I’ve been in and around the industry and business in general to believe that for a minute.

]]> By: centernetworks http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22090 centernetworks Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22090 <p> "I consider you a friend but i think you're just complaining because some of these shady ways to make a buck appeal to you." </p> <p> Are you seriously kidding me? I loaded up RWW this morning, read your story, immediately realized they are/were affiliate links and was shocked that you didn't see same. After your readers said the same, it was equally shocking that the update was so limited. </p> <p> I am not sure you can make a blanket statement that tech companies watch their names on Twitter - and how do you know they aren't already working on the issue? Who did you speak with at the companies to find out? </p> <p> And please understand I am by no means saying I support Magpie. </p> "I consider you a friend but i think you’re just complaining because some of these shady ways to make a buck appeal to you."

Are you seriously kidding me? I loaded up RWW this morning, read your story, immediately realized they are/were affiliate links and was shocked that you didn’t see same. After your readers said the same, it was equally shocking that the update was so limited.

I am not sure you can make a blanket statement that tech companies watch their names on Twitter – and how do you know they aren’t already working on the issue? Who did you speak with at the companies to find out?

And please understand I am by no means saying I support Magpie.

]]> By: Michael Fidler http://www.centernetworks.com/bloggers-journalists-wrong#comment-22092 Michael Fidler Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-22092 If this is so obvious, then why didn't Scoble realize what was happening too? He was appalled at the way these companies were conducting their business. I'm sure he knows the business of blogging fairly well too. Besides, focusing on this peripheral garbage is diverting attention away from the more important issues. For example, why is this story getting so much attention? Personally, I think it has to do with honesty, or the lack of it in Social Networks. Rob Diana’s wrote about this in his recent post, “Sorry Twitter, Facebook is the Gold Mine”. http://is.gd/owHz For the record, I do believe and trust you on the affiliate problem, but I had to point out the Scoble inconsistency. If this is so obvious, then why didn’t Scoble realize what was happening too? He was appalled at the way these companies were conducting their business. I’m sure he knows the business of blogging fairly well too. Besides, focusing on this peripheral garbage is diverting attention away from the more important issues. For example, why is this story getting so much attention? Personally, I think it has to do with honesty, or the lack of it in Social Networks. Rob Diana’s wrote about this in his recent post, “Sorry Twitter, Facebook is the Gold Mine”. http://is.gd/owHz For the record, I do believe and trust you on the affiliate problem, but I had to point out the Scoble inconsistency.

]]>