Neapolitan
...
Last edited by DavidS on Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The difference with advertisement in traditional press is very easy.
When you see an advert in a magazine, it's clear that this advert is not printed for free. It may or may not influence editorial, but at least there is a clear separation: here is an advert, here is an editorial. A clear, explicit contract between a magazine and a merchant: you pay us for a page of space, you print there what you want, under an "advertisement" banner. There might be an "implicit" part -- "...and then you write only good things about us", but at least we all can see that a brand's advertisement is here, right on next page, and draw our own conclusions.
Getting paid for articles themselves by brands featured in these articles -- in whatever form! -- is a form of bribery. As simple as this.
Andrey
When you see an advert in a magazine, it's clear that this advert is not printed for free. It may or may not influence editorial, but at least there is a clear separation: here is an advert, here is an editorial. A clear, explicit contract between a magazine and a merchant: you pay us for a page of space, you print there what you want, under an "advertisement" banner. There might be an "implicit" part -- "...and then you write only good things about us", but at least we all can see that a brand's advertisement is here, right on next page, and draw our own conclusions.
Getting paid for articles themselves by brands featured in these articles -- in whatever form! -- is a form of bribery. As simple as this.
Andrey
Dear DavidS,DavidS wrote:
Please forgive this rant - it is perhaps just difficult (or unpleasant) to accept that one's idols don't merely have mud on their boots but do, indeed, have feet of clay.
well, it may help that I never "idolised" him
. There are many things he does pretty well, others where he fails or misses the point - all my subjective perception or opinion. He has passion, dedication and shown consistency, which in itself deserves respect. Cheers, David
not Idavidhuh wrote:Where I don't follow you: the standards you seem to follow would kill almost everything out there in the blogosphere & instagram world
The problem is that for many special-interest publications, the "implicit" part determines what editorial content is even offered. I used to review recorded performances of renaissance and baroque music for several publications. One of the leading journals dedicated exclusively to classical music recordings ran both reviews and features. On the occasion of the release of a marvelous recording of the complete lute works of John Dowland, from new scholarly editions prepared by the performer, who was generally regarded as the greatest living exponent of his instrument, I proposed to the editor an interview feature on said performer and project, which obviously had many fascinating dimensions to explore. It turned out that the journal's policy was only to run such features if the recording label purchased a full-page ad. This was apparently well-enough known that when I gingerly approached the label rep, she was completely unsurprised and felt the exposure would justify the ad buy. So the feature went ahead, and I and the performer had a marvelous conversation without any interference as to the content. We received many messages from readers saying how much they enjoyed the piece. But it would not have appeared at all without the ad purchase.andreyb wrote:The difference with advertisement in traditional press is very easy.
When you see an advert in a magazine, it's clear that this advert is not printed for free. It may or may not influence editorial, but at least there is a clear separation: here is an advert, here is an editorial. A clear, explicit contract between a magazine and a merchant: you pay us for a page of space, you print there what you want, under an "advertisement" banner. There might be an "implicit" part -- "...and then you write only good things about us", but at least we all can see that a brand's advertisement is here, right on next page, and draw our own conclusions.
Getting paid for articles themselves by brands featured in these articles -- in whatever form! -- is a form of bribery. As simple as this.
Andrey
This kind of devil's bargain haunts many specialist publications/blogs/social-media entrepreneurs, especially when said correspondents are not independently wealthy and the objects of editorial interest are costly. The writers, if not simply contributing as a hobby, need a business model that supports them to devote time to the pursuit, as do the platforms dedicated to the topic; and the producers of the goods value a self-selecting audience of enthusiasts that makes advertising or subsidies highly efficient from a marketing standpoint.
This is all nothing new. What I think makes it more complicated today is the extent to which the writer and the platform are seen as a single entity by their constituency. Everybody knows Esquire takes ads, everybody expects (or should) product placement quid pro quos in exchange, but most people don't accuse the writers (staff or freelance) who write the copy of conflicts of interest. But when the "middle man" of an institutional platform is removed and the blogger becomes the brand, the same dynamic suddenly looks tainted. It's probably very hard to support a career like Simon's without product placement or subsidies of one kind or another, and whether his judgments are affected or not, the appearance of conflict of interest persists.
Thank you Couch. Precisely what I meant 
Cheers, David
Cheers, David
This is a good example of an obvious conflict of interest without a negative consequence for a third party (and perhaps, even with a positive one). It really doesn't matter whether SC receives discounts or freebies. Good for him. What it matters is whether you can trust his information and opinions. And this you have to learn by yourself as you do with any newspaper, reporter, website, etc. No shortcuts. If by now, you know that you can trust the guy, it doesn't matter how he makes a living. I have taken advantage of the information by him provided. Useful indeed. His taste and opinions, well...that's another story.couch wrote: The feature went ahead, and I and the performer had a marvelous conversation without any interference as to the content. We received many messages from readers saying how much they enjoyed the piece. But it would not have appeared at all without the ad purchase.
Imagine a slightly different situation: the label didn't bought an ad at all -- so, nothing with "this is a paid advertisement" banner got printed in the magazine. Instead, the label simply (and silently) transferred the same amount of money to the publisher's account. Then the editor asked you to conduct the interview.couch wrote:The problem is that for many special-interest publications, the "implicit" part determines what editorial content is even offered. I used to review recorded performances of renaissance and baroque music for several publications. One of the leading journals dedicated exclusively to classical music recordings ran both reviews and features. On the occasion of the release of a marvelous recording of the complete lute works of John Dowland, from new scholarly editions prepared by the performer, who was generally regarded as the greatest living exponent of his instrument, I proposed to the editor an interview feature on said performer and project, which obviously had many fascinating dimensions to explore. It turned out that the journal's policy was only to run such features if the recording label purchased a full-page ad. This was apparently well-enough known that when I gingerly approached the label rep, she was completely unsurprised and felt the exposure would justify the ad buy. So the feature went ahead, and I and the performer had a marvelous conversation without any interference as to the content. We received many messages from readers saying how much they enjoyed the piece. But it would not have appeared at all without the ad purchase.
Is it the same?
A third case: no ad purchased, money transferred, but the interview got printed with "this interview is sponsored by label X".
Still the same?
No difference in reader's impression of the material? No difference in implicit obligations from the publisher to the label?
Andrey
Point well taken, Andrey—at least your first one. Silent payment is not transparent, and labeled sponsorship encourages skepticism.
If a blogger's policy, publicly stated, was: "If you want coverage on my blog, buy enough advertising to support the platform and my cost to purchase your products for review if I so choose," the reader would be better able to form judgments. There would at least be a (thin) third term— a second transaction—between the payer and the reviewer, and readers would know. But this is really just money laundering. The quid pro quo remains.
Your models of silent payoff or labeled sponsorship, ironically, are how most nonprofits operate. Donors contribute, and large donors have sway over decisions. I have worked in museums and universities, and I can attest that this is true. Donors want their names (labels) on buildings and make demands about how they are built and what they will house. They dangle gifts of their art collections for years to encourage museums to compete for them by pleasing the donors. Some entities, like U.S. public television, do a pretty good job of staying independent (regarding policy and editorial content) despite accepting sponsorships from donors with agendas, but it can't be easy. When I see "David H. Koch" named as a principal sponsor of a PBS series like Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's "The Vietnam War," I know that it is part of a coordinated, well-documented campaign to diffuse recognition of the Koch brothers's ultra-conservative activities in other forums (image polishing), though many viewers may not. I have no doubt that PBS leadership knows exactly what's happening, but accepts the money anyway so long as content development remains uninfluenced.
Ultimately, I think hectorm is right that readers have to form their own judgments over time about when to trust bloggers like Simon and when not to. So many online entrepreneurs begin with totally free, uninfluenced content in order to build a large enough following for advertisers to consider supporting them, and if that happens, the other mechanisms of support follow suit. Then the reader perceives a falling off from the "purist" early days that were only purist as a cost of doing business as a startup.
The glory days of the Washington Post were due largely to its owner, Katherine Graham, being wealthy enough to back Arthur Sulzberger at the NY Times during the Pentagon Papers and Ben Bradlee during Watergate regardless of the impact on advertising revenue or legal defense costs. That freedom—and courage—to subscribe to an ethics of public trust and act to defend it is a kind of ideal which fewer and fewer media outlets either want, on the one hand, or can afford, on the other, to strive for.
But hey, it was a lot worse in 18th-century London!
If a blogger's policy, publicly stated, was: "If you want coverage on my blog, buy enough advertising to support the platform and my cost to purchase your products for review if I so choose," the reader would be better able to form judgments. There would at least be a (thin) third term— a second transaction—between the payer and the reviewer, and readers would know. But this is really just money laundering. The quid pro quo remains.
Your models of silent payoff or labeled sponsorship, ironically, are how most nonprofits operate. Donors contribute, and large donors have sway over decisions. I have worked in museums and universities, and I can attest that this is true. Donors want their names (labels) on buildings and make demands about how they are built and what they will house. They dangle gifts of their art collections for years to encourage museums to compete for them by pleasing the donors. Some entities, like U.S. public television, do a pretty good job of staying independent (regarding policy and editorial content) despite accepting sponsorships from donors with agendas, but it can't be easy. When I see "David H. Koch" named as a principal sponsor of a PBS series like Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's "The Vietnam War," I know that it is part of a coordinated, well-documented campaign to diffuse recognition of the Koch brothers's ultra-conservative activities in other forums (image polishing), though many viewers may not. I have no doubt that PBS leadership knows exactly what's happening, but accepts the money anyway so long as content development remains uninfluenced.
Ultimately, I think hectorm is right that readers have to form their own judgments over time about when to trust bloggers like Simon and when not to. So many online entrepreneurs begin with totally free, uninfluenced content in order to build a large enough following for advertisers to consider supporting them, and if that happens, the other mechanisms of support follow suit. Then the reader perceives a falling off from the "purist" early days that were only purist as a cost of doing business as a startup.
The glory days of the Washington Post were due largely to its owner, Katherine Graham, being wealthy enough to back Arthur Sulzberger at the NY Times during the Pentagon Papers and Ben Bradlee during Watergate regardless of the impact on advertising revenue or legal defense costs. That freedom—and courage—to subscribe to an ethics of public trust and act to defend it is a kind of ideal which fewer and fewer media outlets either want, on the one hand, or can afford, on the other, to strive for.
But hey, it was a lot worse in 18th-century London!
It’s not that complicated.
How many of us here are pursuaded by Simon Compton or any other blogger for goodness sake??
Really!!
It’s as if we are talking about ourselves as hapless sheep led by a Sartorial Shepherd.
Or ads, or editorials, or opinion pages, or reviews ....in any magazine...on any subject.
Come on, friends, you weren’t born yesterday. Right??
I hope that we are all free, independent thinkers with our own views and opinions, and not led by the taste makers. Or the bloggers. Or the actors. Or the merchandisers or persuaders or pimps or politicians...?
We are sometimes buyers. Sometimes sellers.
Of course, everyone, everyday, every moment is selling us something: whether their views or opinions or arguments. Whether for profit or merit or ego.
Whether their product, vodka or restaurant.
Whether their charm, worthiness or smile.
Who cares how much money or favors have passed for an article to be written??
Do we blindly follow the opinion or assessment or recommendations of that article??
G. Bruce Boyer is over on Drake’s editorializing and modeling their products.
Do I care that he is getting paid for that??
Does he need to stamp it on his forehead ??
Does he have to declare it in writing to me??
Does getting paid diminish the value of a good product or a sharp dresser and stand up man??
No.
Do we now need a department of sartorial consumer protection??
How about the simple old term caveat emptor?
How about a sense of realism and skepticism?
But still I enjoy learning about new products and sources. Not too jaded.
So now that I hope you know and trust me, I’d like to talk to you about a tailor I know in Napoli who is available for a few select clients, a few friends of mine, he working only as a side line from his day time job in one of the premier sartoria there. Sorry I cannot reveal more in this post.
PM me if you are interested.
How many of us here are pursuaded by Simon Compton or any other blogger for goodness sake??
Really!!
It’s as if we are talking about ourselves as hapless sheep led by a Sartorial Shepherd.
Or ads, or editorials, or opinion pages, or reviews ....in any magazine...on any subject.
Come on, friends, you weren’t born yesterday. Right??
I hope that we are all free, independent thinkers with our own views and opinions, and not led by the taste makers. Or the bloggers. Or the actors. Or the merchandisers or persuaders or pimps or politicians...?
We are sometimes buyers. Sometimes sellers.
Of course, everyone, everyday, every moment is selling us something: whether their views or opinions or arguments. Whether for profit or merit or ego.
Whether their product, vodka or restaurant.
Whether their charm, worthiness or smile.
Who cares how much money or favors have passed for an article to be written??
Do we blindly follow the opinion or assessment or recommendations of that article??
G. Bruce Boyer is over on Drake’s editorializing and modeling their products.
Do I care that he is getting paid for that??
Does he need to stamp it on his forehead ??
Does he have to declare it in writing to me??
Does getting paid diminish the value of a good product or a sharp dresser and stand up man??
No.
Do we now need a department of sartorial consumer protection??
How about the simple old term caveat emptor?
How about a sense of realism and skepticism?
But still I enjoy learning about new products and sources. Not too jaded.
So now that I hope you know and trust me, I’d like to talk to you about a tailor I know in Napoli who is available for a few select clients, a few friends of mine, he working only as a side line from his day time job in one of the premier sartoria there. Sorry I cannot reveal more in this post.
PM me if you are interested.
I think Crompton has created a very clever business model; he get more hits with every article he posts, which drives advertisers to his site, which pays for his commissions. Smart.
But whilst he originally wrote interesting pieces about bespoke tailoring, he has somehow managed to morph into a style guru. A lot of the stuff he wears does beg the question if he really is, but so many hopeless questions pepper his site (can I wear black shoes with grey flannel etc etc) that it shows how little a lot of his audience know. This makes him an "expert" apparently.
But whilst he originally wrote interesting pieces about bespoke tailoring, he has somehow managed to morph into a style guru. A lot of the stuff he wears does beg the question if he really is, but so many hopeless questions pepper his site (can I wear black shoes with grey flannel etc etc) that it shows how little a lot of his audience know. This makes him an "expert" apparently.
I agree.
A Burberry cotton trench coat circa 1975 has been a long and trusted friend.
I have worn it everywhere on every occasion.
Always fantastic.
The European country in which I lived during those times - well, the trench was a staple there, just perfect.
With an inner wool lining and a scarf, it was a 4 season coat.
There was no sense of irony or self consciousness there in Europe as to the snooper dooper detective association which the US seems to have. I was only taught to be self conscious in it when I moved to the US for a period.
The US clothes culture really does seem to kill many classics. And decent classical clothing in general. ( perhaps 1950s preppy/Ivy League survives in some few enclaves.... not sure about that). It is probably up to Europe and sectors of Asia to save and revive classical clothing ....
I still have it. It’s a little bit worn and frayed. A few rips here and there. I used to send it to a specialized cleaner which would take care of the leather bits on the buckle and the brass, and I guess spray it for water resistance. And stitch it together where they could.
Surely, an old friend hanging still in hanging the closet waiting for a call to action.
A Burberry cotton trench coat circa 1975 has been a long and trusted friend.
I have worn it everywhere on every occasion.
Always fantastic.
The European country in which I lived during those times - well, the trench was a staple there, just perfect.
With an inner wool lining and a scarf, it was a 4 season coat.
There was no sense of irony or self consciousness there in Europe as to the snooper dooper detective association which the US seems to have. I was only taught to be self conscious in it when I moved to the US for a period.
The US clothes culture really does seem to kill many classics. And decent classical clothing in general. ( perhaps 1950s preppy/Ivy League survives in some few enclaves.... not sure about that). It is probably up to Europe and sectors of Asia to save and revive classical clothing ....
I still have it. It’s a little bit worn and frayed. A few rips here and there. I used to send it to a specialized cleaner which would take care of the leather bits on the buckle and the brass, and I guess spray it for water resistance. And stitch it together where they could.
Surely, an old friend hanging still in hanging the closet waiting for a call to action.
Not trying to lambast Mr Crompton to death, but mostly led by my own musings prompted by Couch's eloquent description of current state of things, I went to "About Us" page on PS (https://www.permanentstyle.com/about-us):
Looks like publicly stated policies didn't caught up with Mr Crompton's desire for new streams of revenue.
Andrey
Ahem... What?!Our policy on funding
Permanent Style never accepts payment for articles, Instagram posts or any other form of coverage. We believe that is not transparent enough for the reader.
Looks like publicly stated policies didn't caught up with Mr Crompton's desire for new streams of revenue.
Andrey
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests