[arg_discuss] Deception and what it means to be Real

[Brooke Thompson]

On Jun 19, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Michael Monello wrote:


> The post you link to was the first contact readers of gawker sites  

> had with the integration, establishing a tone that was instantly  

> combative and not based on the content at all. To be really crass  

> about it - the editorial department shit in the pool before anyone  

> had a chance to dip a toe in.


Yeah, the tone of that article was definitely a push in the OUTRAGE!  
NOW! direction. Of course, that outrage went towards advertising =  
evil, duh! direction that is oh so tired and not very interesting or  
productive, but whatever. They aren't all as obsessed over what it  
means to be "real" in a digital world and how does fiction fit into  
that as I am, the jerks. :)



> The question as to whether readers would have responded differently  

> remains - the bloodcopy posts were not taking away from what people  

> came for, they were attempts to tell a fictional story through the  

> space usually occupied by banner ads.


I have to disagree here...

Ads do come at a cost to the user. Oh, sure, we might justify it by  
saying that a story told in an ad is a heck of a lot better than  
something shouting "Congratulations! You have won an iPod!", but it is  
still not what drives users to Gawker or IO9 or wherever. That is just  
something that we have to deal with when we choose to use banners or  
sponsored posts or whatever. So, we have to make sure that the cost is  
worth it, and that's even more true when using sponsored posts which  
cost more as the user invests more time in reading it (if they do read  
it).

And I, for one, am very much interested in talking about this sort of  
stuff over beers with you at ARGFest. Cannot wait!