Comments on: Gawker’s Bloody Miss, A Hit After All? http://www.blogherald.com/2009/06/01/gawkers-bloody-miss-a-hit-after-all/ The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:30:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Thord Daniel Hedengren http://www.blogherald.com/2009/06/01/gawkers-bloody-miss-a-hit-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1032529 Thord Daniel Hedengren Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:15:29 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/?p=12541#comment-1032529 Thanks for your comment Brian. I too hate ads trying to pass themselves off as editorial content. It's a lame way to fool the non-attentive reader to think that the publication endorses something. Thanks for your comment Brian. I too hate ads trying to pass themselves off as editorial content. It’s a lame way to fool the non-attentive reader to think that the publication endorses something.

]]> By: Brian Carnell http://www.blogherald.com/2009/06/01/gawkers-bloody-miss-a-hit-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1030825 Brian Carnell Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:11:49 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/?p=12541#comment-1030825 It is a lot like reading the full page ads in magazines that try to mimic the magazine's layout such that at first glance it looks like its magazine copy rather than an ad. In fact, typically the confusion is so great that the magazine or advertiser inserts a "Paid Advertisment" message. What do you think of those ads? Personally, I hate the fact that the advertiser thinks he has to try to fool me to get me to look at the ad. OTOH, the fact that such schemes are so prevalent suggest that they must be fairly effective at least with a sizable part of the readership. I don't think they'll work online in blogs, however, because of the nature of the readership. I just don't think you have the passive readers who are going to get fooled easily and/or not are about the attempt to fool them. There's *always* going to be a backlash against this nonsense because the same tools that make it easy to do also make it easy for others to point and laugh at the sheer stupidity of it all. It is a lot like reading the full page ads in magazines that try to mimic the magazine’s layout such that at first glance it looks like its magazine copy rather than an ad. In fact, typically the confusion is so great that the magazine or advertiser inserts a “Paid Advertisment” message.

What do you think of those ads? Personally, I hate the fact that the advertiser thinks he has to try to fool me to get me to look at the ad. OTOH, the fact that such schemes are so prevalent suggest that they must be fairly effective at least with a sizable part of the readership.

I don’t think they’ll work online in blogs, however, because of the nature of the readership. I just don’t think you have the passive readers who are going to get fooled easily and/or not are about the attempt to fool them. There’s *always* going to be a backlash against this nonsense because the same tools that make it easy to do also make it easy for others to point and laugh at the sheer stupidity of it all.

]]>