|
Author |
Message |
Da Bull Man
|
Post subject: No Sponsors? Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:10 am |
|
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=PF1Gotta 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 |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Paul Kierstead
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:09 am |
|
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 |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
jimbo
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:35 am |
|
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 |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Darcie
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:06 pm |
|
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 |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
phoenix
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:23 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:33 pm Posts: 954 Location: Northern California
|
I think the difference is semantics. They both are advertising.
|
|
Top |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Paul Kierstead
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:39 pm |
|
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 |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Paul Kierstead
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:53 pm |
|
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 ![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
|
|
Top |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
TheFuzzy
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:47 pm |
|
![Offline Offline](./styles/RedSilver3/imageset/en/icon_user_offline.gif) |
Site Admin |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=53_1346909589.jpg) |
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 |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Kathy's Pete
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:04 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:10 pm Posts: 1060 Location: PA
|
|
Top |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Kathy's Pete
|
Post subject: Re: No Sponsors? Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:07 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:10 pm Posts: 1060 Location: PA
|
|
Top |
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 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
|
|
|