Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Shop, cook, eat, drink, post, repeat.
 
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:03 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 1403
Location: Six Shooter Junction, Texas
This is so not happening.

http://www.americastestkitchen.com/gtts ... &Scode=PF1

Gotta love this..."By clicking "Submit", I agree to be subscribed to the newsletters from America's Test Kitchen and their partners listed to the left, as well as exclusive offers. I am aware that I can unsubscribe at any time, and that neither unsubscribing nor remaining a subscriber will have any effect whatsoever on my chances of winning."

_________________
To do is to be [Descartes] To be is to do [Voltaire] Do be do be do [Sinatra].


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 1531
Location: Ottawa, ON
You don't get the chance of something for nothing.

Actually, they claim no advertisers, but I don't think they claim no sponsors?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:50 am
Posts: 44
Paul Kierstead wrote:
You don't get the chance of something for nothing.

Actually, they claim no advertisers, but I don't think they claim no sponsors?


And the difference between a partner listed on the left, a sponsor, and an advertiser is?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:18 pm
Posts: 1244
I think the difference between a sponsor and an advertiser is pretty clear. Sponsors get mentioned, advertisers place ads.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:33 pm
Posts: 954
Location: Northern California
I think the difference is semantics. They both are advertising.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 1531
Location: Ottawa, ON
Well, it is not *just* semantics, since things like placement of the promotion differ. Also, fairly importantly, the nature of the message is different; typically an advertiser completely controls the message of the ad, whereas a sponsor works in conjunction with the client to work out the message. The length of contract likely typically also differs.

Normally, a sponsor and an advertiser, in conventional everyday speech, are considered differently. Whether or not they have a similar (or any) effect on editorial content is another issue, of course.

I'm just not that fond of round-about suggestions of dishonesty; this sort of thing is fairly popular ("You draw the conclusions!") in media right now, and I don't think it is a good way to go about things. Having a sponsor (or advertiser) does not automatically make one dishonest or biased (though some interesting research does suggest that even serious determination to remain un-swayed is largely unsuccessful when even gifts are given, even relatively small ones). If we think ATK is dishonest, just say so, and why.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 1531
Location: Ottawa, ON
OKOK, that wasn't really suggested here.... it gets my panties in a bunch, clearly :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:03 am
Posts: 5280
Location: Portland, OR
Paul,

I'll say it: ATK/CI is claiming "no advertisers", but is then completely erasing the line between sponsors and advertisers. For example, "participating in promotions" is something you do with advertisers ... not sponsors. I know, I'm on the board of several 501(c)3's; if we gave a "sponsor" access to our membership list for advertising purposes, the IRS would be all over our butts. And rightly so.

So, yes, ATK is being dishonest about the difference between "sponsor" and "advertiser". And once you're dishonest about one thing, it's pretty easy to rationalize being dishonest about others. I think other people on this board have already documented how CI's ratings comparisons have changed over the years in ways that "coincidentally" favor "sponsors".

So, do I think thta ATK/CI is dishonest and untrustworthy when it comes to ratings, comparisons, and product recommendations? Yes, I do.

_________________
The Fuzzy Chef
Serious Chef iz Serious!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:10 pm
Posts: 1060
Location: PA
I though I had remembered that CI didn't review products sold by sponsors, but obviously they review flours and King Arthur rates well in those evaluations.

http://bakingbites.com/2011/02/ci-taste ... at-flours/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: No Sponsors?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:10 pm
Posts: 1060
Location: PA
Some more info:
http://atkpress.tumblr.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum