Jump to content


Photo

Paid Content! (As in sponsored articles)


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,853 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 11 November 2015 - 19:28

I see the latest "exclusive feature" is "Survive the weather on Rally GB". That's nice, but the whole thing is a major ad (with prices) from a company.
 
1. Shouldn't these things be marked? Product Placement, Paid Content, Sponsored Articles etc. Or maybe it's just my national laws that are stricter on this, but it is generally seen as good practice to "warn" people.
2. Is it really an exclusive feature? Do I pay to get a long article about clothes from a company that sell clothes?
 
EDIT: I see it now, with small red printing in the top that it says "ADVERTORIAL"but point 2 still stands, do I really pay for that?


Edited by Myrvold, 11 November 2015 - 19:30.


Advertisement

#2 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 11 November 2015 - 19:35

(Leaving aside the irony of a motor racing fan complaining about adverts masquerading as product)



#3 Grayson

Grayson
  • Autosport digital product manager

  • 3,497 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 12 November 2015 - 01:10

2. Is it really an exclusive feature? Do I pay to get a long article about clothes from a company that sell clothes?

 

To answer your question directly, no - that feature isn't part of the premium content behind the paywall. It's listed as a feature, but it's not part of the content you're paying for and it's viewable by everyone regardless of whether they're an Autosport Plus member or not.

 

As to the wider point of sponsored content, this is exactly the sort of content which straddles the line between the stuff which our readers want to see and the stuff which our commercial partners would like you to see. The feedback we've had (through surveys, focus groups, posts in this forum, E-mail conversations, etc.) suggest that Autosport readers would rather see this sort of sponsored content which is directly related to motorsport rather than more banner ads across the site. Of course, we're still interested to hear more opinions as to how we should display this sort of content to avoid any confusion as to exactly what it is.



#4 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 15,853 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 12 November 2015 - 17:25

To answer your question directly, no - that feature isn't part of the premium content behind the paywall. It's listed as a feature, but it's not part of the content you're paying for and it's viewable by everyone regardless of whether they're an Autosport Plus member or not.

 

As to the wider point of sponsored content, this is exactly the sort of content which straddles the line between the stuff which our readers want to see and the stuff which our commercial partners would like you to see. The feedback we've had (through surveys, focus groups, posts in this forum, E-mail conversations, etc.) suggest that Autosport readers would rather see this sort of sponsored content which is directly related to motorsport rather than more banner ads across the site. Of course, we're still interested to hear more opinions as to how we should display this sort of content to avoid any confusion as to exactly what it is.

That answers it more than good enough for me! :)
If the choice is between this content and banners, I agree - I was just surprised, as I didn't see the "advertorial" at the first three times I looked for it, and I thought it was only for A+ members, as it is placed under the A+ banner.

 

Anyway, thanks for the answer, and I'm moving on :)



#5 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 15 November 2015 - 13:33

I thought if you paid for Autosport you no longer had adverts inflicted on you.  Has that changed?

Neil



#6 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 19,631 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 15 November 2015 - 13:54

I don't get ads, so for me nothing changed.



#7 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 16 November 2015 - 23:01

I'd venture that the "advertorial" Myrvold opened this thread about is very definitely an ad.

 

Neil



#8 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 19,631 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 17 November 2015 - 05:27

Grayson answered that.

 

I never click on such links anyway, there is software available who can hide any content and links to content indicated as advertorial.

 

However I just discovered a more serious issue.

 

http://forums.autosp...-wrong-content/



#9 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 17 November 2015 - 15:36

Grayson answered that.

 

I never click on such links anyway, there is software available who can hide any content and links to content indicated as advertorial.

 

However I just discovered a more serious issue.

 

http://forums.autosp...-wrong-content/

He didn't really answer it so much as rationalized it.

 

Neil



#10 Grayson

Grayson
  • Autosport digital product manager

  • 3,497 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 November 2015 - 16:58

I thought if you paid for Autosport you no longer had adverts inflicted on you.  Has that changed?

 

This hasn't changed, our promise has always been to remove the banner, MPU and "skin" ads (the ones which wrap around the site) for anyone who signs up to Autosport Plus. This is because you've told us (and because our longest standing members used to tell the Atlas F1 team) that these make your time on the site worse.

 

Feedback from our readers about native/promoted/sponsored content has been a different matter. You've generally told us that you're happy to see content which is relevant to motorsport but which is being brought to you by one of our commercial partners, so long as we make it clear that what you're seeing is advertorial content.

 

The two pieces of advertorial we've run on the site in the past few days have been about the merchandise which is available around Rally GB and about the a newly homologated rally car (including our Rally Editor's thoughts on the car). I don't think we'd be doing our paying members a favour by hiding this content and removing your option to even consider clicking on it!



#11 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 17 November 2015 - 19:40

Fair enough.  Not sure I agree, but I can understand your reasoning.  Thanks for expanding your explanation Grayson.  :up:

 

Neil



#12 Anders Torp

Anders Torp
  • Member

  • 591 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 17 November 2015 - 21:36

 
As to the wider point of sponsored content, this is exactly the sort of content which straddles the line between the stuff which our readers want to see and the stuff which our commercial partners would like you to see. The feedback we've had (through surveys, focus groups, posts in this forum, E-mail conversations, etc.) suggest that Autosport readers would rather see this sort of sponsored content which is directly related to motorsport rather than more banner ads across the site. Of course, we're still interested to hear more opinions as to how we should display this sort of content to avoid any confusion as to exactly what it is.

Why do your "commercial partners" want ads that are dressed up to look like editorial content? Was someone from Haymarket involved in writing or editing this ad? Did Toyota pay to be able to quote your "very own rally editor" (oh, the irony!)?

#13 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 18 November 2015 - 19:46

Speaking of which, is this news?

 

British Touring Car Championship 2015 Season Review released

 

 

The 2015 British Touring Car Championship Season Review will hit the shops on Thursday.

 

The 132-page special, put together in conjunction with the BTCC's official media partner the Haymarket Consumer Media, reflects on each of the 30 races that were fought out over 10 race meetings at nine different venues across the United Kingdom, along with full statistical analysis of every race.



#14 Anders Torp

Anders Torp
  • Member

  • 591 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 18 November 2015 - 20:35

Speaking of which, is this news?
 
British Touring Car Championship 2015 Season Review released


It's even listed under "Breaking News". That's so clueless it's almost funny.

#15 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 19 November 2015 - 15:39

Actually in their defence <Grayson faints> I can see that as an announcement of a book launch, and as such, a relevant news item for those interested in the release of new books on their favourite areas of the sport.  Admittedly, it probably doesn't qualify as "Breaking News" which I'm sure most of us would consider an area of important and immediate happenings.

 

Neil



#16 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 November 2015 - 19:42

In which case I wish they'd announce the launch of other books we might find interesting but that Haymarket haven't published themselves.

 

On the other hand I reckon a BTCC season review feature with a plug for the book at the bottom would've been fine.



#17 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 31,165 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2015 - 20:28

It's even listed under "Breaking News". That's so clueless it's almost funny.

 

Aside from premium content, every new article is listed under "breaking news."



#18 Anders Torp

Anders Torp
  • Member

  • 591 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 26 November 2015 - 22:17

Why do your "commercial partners" want ads that are dressed up to look like editorial content? Was someone from Haymarket involved in writing or editing this ad? Did Toyota pay to be able to quote your "very own rally editor" (oh, the irony!)?


So, Grayson, to busy to answer?

#19 Grayson

Grayson
  • Autosport digital product manager

  • 3,497 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 27 November 2015 - 12:03

So, Grayson, to busy to answer?

 

I thought that your main question was rhetorical, to be honest! Different commercial partners want to run native content for different reasons, and I wouldn't presume to answer on their behalf. The main reason for choosing a native content format rather than regular advertising should be so that they can get information (as opposed to a straight marketing message) which they want to spread for commercial reasons across in a format which is convenient and enjoyable for our readers. They may well be hoping to gain from the goodwill they generate by using this format rather than interruptive advertising, or they might just think that that this is a good way to engage with as many readers as possible.

 

Where this sort of thing is done best, it's the sort of content which our readers would have wanted to see on the site regardless of whether it was being promoted. I hope that we manage this on Autosport, but I'll leave you to judge how well we're doing against this yardstick.

 

As to your question about editorial involvement, Haymarket/Autosport editorial will be involved in screening and approving content at a very minimum. At times, they will also be involved in editing, rewriting or writing the content in a way that's more suitable for our editorial style and for our readers. As a policy, our editorial team will never be taking money to praise a product or service on behalf of Autosport. If you see a journalist speaking on behalf of Autosport and giving their opinion on a driver, team, product, etc. then this should be their honest personal and professional opinion.



Advertisement

#20 Anders Torp

Anders Torp
  • Member

  • 591 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 29 November 2015 - 09:13

I thought that your main question was rhetorical, to be honest! Different commercial partners want to run native content for different reasons, and I wouldn't presume to answer on their behalf. The main reason for choosing a native content format rather than regular advertising should be so that they can get information (as opposed to a straight marketing message) which they want to spread for commercial reasons across in a format which is convenient and enjoyable for our readers. They may well be hoping to gain from the goodwill they generate by using this format rather than interruptive advertising, or they might just think that that this is a good way to engage with as many readers as possible.
 
Where this sort of thing is done best, it's the sort of content which our readers would have wanted to see on the site regardless of whether it was being promoted. I hope that we manage this on Autosport, but I'll leave you to judge how well we're doing against this yardstick.
 
As to your question about editorial involvement, Haymarket/Autosport editorial will be involved in screening and approving content at a very minimum. At times, they will also be involved in editing, rewriting or writing the content in a way that's more suitable for our editorial style and for our readers. As a policy, our editorial team will never be taking money to praise a product or service on behalf of Autosport. If you see a journalist speaking on behalf of Autosport and giving their opinion on a driver, team, product, etc. then this should be their honest personal and professional opinion.

OK, thanks for answering!

#21 Anders Torp

Anders Torp
  • Member

  • 591 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:51

Sorry, but this feels pretty much like paid content:
http://plus.autospor...2475.1429677932

#22 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 January 2016 - 13:53

Well it all is, ultimately. Occasionally we get a nice analysis, but rarely journalism*. Try to recall the last time you read a piece about a driver that wasn't about how great is he, one of the fittest and most committed, etc. Fill in the blanks, repeat.



*This is fundamentally a motorsport wide problem.

#23 Goma

Goma
  • Member

  • 91 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 January 2016 - 17:23

Sorry, but this feels pretty much like paid content:
http://plus.autospor...2475.1429677932

 

Absolutely, it's sad how the author tries to make Stroll look good.

Is that really a honest article?

Did Stroll's father pay for it? Or we did with our subscriptions?

 

:well:  :well:  :well:

 

 

Edit: spelling


Edited by Goma, 08 January 2016 - 12:08.


#24 Grayson

Grayson
  • Autosport digital product manager

  • 3,497 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 January 2016 - 10:23

We don't accept money from drivers (or their parents, representatives, sponsors, etc.) to pretend that our journalists think more highly of them than they really do.

 

I can assure you that that feature reflects the author's true opinion of Lance Stroll.

 

 

Try to recall the last time you read a piece about a driver that wasn't about how great is he, one of the fittest and most committed, etc. Fill in the blanks, repeat.

 

(What follows is my own personal opinion rather than that of Autosport)

 

That could be because almost all of the drivers who are at a high enough level to get lots of coverage in the motorsport media these days are actually pretty good, fit, dedicated and committed! I think that Autosport strikes the right balance and manages to highlight drivers who have been disappointing (look at the coverage of Vettel in 2014 or of Raikkonen over the past two years) without running attack pieces with clickbaity headlines like "10 times Pastor Maldonado proved that he doesn't deserve to be in Formula One".

 

There was even a good natured discussion and vote during Autosport's live pre-season testing coverage a few years ago about the worst ever driver in Formula One - Taki Innoue won after he urged his Twitter followers to vote for him.



#25 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 January 2016 - 12:33

The Autosport.com article about Stroll did go against received wisdom, at any rate.

Like Ross says a well-sourced, factually accurate character assassination isn't going to happen with F1 the way it is. So an attempted defence is more interesting/novel than Stroll's Youtube Greatest Hits. Which we can also watch.