OKOK, that wasn't really suggested here.... it gets my panties in a bunch, clearly
| Cookaholics Bulletin Board https://cookaholics.org/ |
|
| No Sponsors? https://cookaholics.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3045 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Da Bull Man [ Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | No Sponsors? |
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." |
|
| Author: | Paul Kierstead [ Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
You don't get the chance of something for nothing. Actually, they claim no advertisers, but I don't think they claim no sponsors? |
|
| Author: | jimbo [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
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? |
|
| Author: | Darcie [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
I think the difference between a sponsor and an advertiser is pretty clear. Sponsors get mentioned, advertisers place ads. |
|
| Author: | phoenix [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
I think the difference is semantics. They both are advertising. |
|
| Author: | Paul Kierstead [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
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. |
|
| Author: | Paul Kierstead [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
OKOK, that wasn't really suggested here.... it gets my panties in a bunch, clearly
|
|
| Author: | TheFuzzy [ Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
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. |
|
| Author: | Kathy's Pete [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
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/ |
|
| Author: | Kathy's Pete [ Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: No Sponsors? |
Some more info: http://atkpress.tumblr.com/ |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|