you should not post stuff intended to annoy people
Exactly. The average “fan boy” of any particular device/system/aircraft/app will see any and all un-positive comment as intentional evil-doing and personal attack far beyond that of an annoyance. I know for a fact that the slightest criticism of “SkyDemon” will annoy several people. If there are representatives from the companies here, they will always feel the urge to protect their babies. The problem with this is not really “intended to annoy” or not. The problem is that user experiences are only user experiences. They are not objective tests done in some lab. My experience may very well be “wrong” objectively speaking, because it is a subjective experience colored by lots of things other than pure facts. People see this differently too. Some will not write about their experience unless they are able to do it objectively, others are much more relaxed.
Advertorial, as it is called, is far from a Czech phenomenon. It is an accepted means of communication in all the markets I work in (I have a software company.)
The difference between advertising and advertorial is that in the advert you can only really place a few words about the features and benefits of what you sell.
Advertorial can be used to tell a much more in depth and complex reality.
We usually get our satisfied customers to write our advertorial. So, for example, if we have completed a successful and complex project for a performing arts centre, chain of theatres or cruise line, we will ask a senior manager to write down their whole experience, including their internal process, tendering process, user experience and so on. This gives the reader an accurate view of what happens when you install our enterprise system into a real enterprise.
If the author were to write something critical, we would leave it in, but of course we don’t ask people we expect to be critical to write such articles.
I don’t think that the industry I am in shares the abreaction of some here to advertorial. They recognise it for what it is, but equally, if they recognise the author, whether by name, position or reputation, they will know that there is valuable information in there, even though they know that the placement is (effectively) paid for.
What you are talking about is a little different than what I experience all the time, and it is more serious than the offers we get from the Czech truck magazines. For an ad they will sell us the cover page and they even want us (because they’re not able) to WRITE the articles ourselves. And these “articles” (haha) they want to present to their readers as work of the editorial office. WHO needs that B.S.?
I have not booked any ads in those magazines the last four years, and I refuse too.
(Having studied marketing, PR and advertising and having worked in the marketing departments of DEC, Microsoft and others for ten years and as a aviation magazine editor and editor in chief, i really know this stuff, believe me.)
And while some things are maybe “accepted” in the meantime (porn is acepted too, and so are many other things i don’t like), that does not mean they have anything to with “journalism”. As I wrote before: I can spend much less money to print nice brochures, invite our customers to partys or spend the money on trade shows.
Go through the last 100 issues of “fliegermagazin”, Germany’s largest GA magazine (for which I worked for 19 years) and try to find ONE article that’s really critical about a product, be it a headset, GPS or airplane. You will not find it. And yes, I played that game too, most times. I hated it. And when I refused and wrote that the Thielert 172 does NOT climb as well as the company said – it was a big thing, The advertising manager complained and the editor in chief wanted me to change my article. And I refused and there was trouble for some time.
Yes, but we know why: Ryanair threaten to sue.
When I hosted PPRuNe they would threaten to sue my company several times a year. They never actually went through it. Part of the problem was the way PPRuNe was run. They had decided that the best plan with all complaints was to completely ignore them; not even acknowledge receipt of the communication. I refused to follow that approach, because if a case did come to court (in the UK) that would work really badly. They used moderators who were generally knowledgable in their field, but not in the art of community management. There is actually a skill to it, which can be learned. There is training, books, etc. available as well as scientific research.
In far bigger forums that we work with being sued is a constant presence, but it rarely comes to anything.
When I wrote the guidelines for EuroGA my motivating thought was that people should just be sensible, and be nice/kind to each other. It might sound a bit wet, but it’s actually very practical. Yes the definition of being nice is different for different people, but broadly it works.
To the original question I absolutely think negative things should be publicised, or at least can be. “There is a bug in my Apple XYZ which means when I press button A the screen goes blank, therefore I think it’s a poor product and wouldn’t buy another one” is legal, informative and useful. “All Apple products are crap” is pointless. “All Apple products are dangerous” is pointless (because it’s clearly not true). “Don’t use an iPhone 6, it’s a pile of crap and the radiation will definitely give you brain damage” is inviting legal problems, mostly because it’s not true.
Go through the last 100 issues of “fliegermagazin”, Germany’s largest GA magazine (for which I worked for 19 years) and try to find ONE article that’s really critical about a product, be it a headset, GPS or airplane. You will not find it.
Reading fliegermagzin might help me with my German lessons, but I know what you mean. I actually skip the four of five page airfield review that appears in one of the popular UK GA magazines because it is completely unbalanced. Of course one shouldn’t go out of their way to rubbish a place, especially as you have been invited in to essentially promote it and the greater good of GA and been given a free bacon sandwich, but a completely positive review just feels a bit sickly and I don’t know why. Maybe I feel like I am being spoon fed something. All GA airfields have their good and bad, and their ‘personalities’ and there is only one writer who writes for the ‘other’ magazine who will actually write things in a balanced way and in a truthful way without being rude about it. But that’s rare, but its important as consumers of a product or service.
In another place a certain pilot supply shop was being vigorously demonised. Some people were more ‘keen’ than others to make claims, but having purchased from said company I knew there was a ring of truth in what many people were saying. Although the owners sob stories were kind of sad to read, I really didn’t buy the constant ‘we will do better’ and ‘its a one off’ and although it wasn’t nice to read, and I wouldn’t like to see it here, what was said had to be said as people were being taken for a bit of a mug.
Flyer59,
Indeed, we write our own advertorial (though we farm this out to satisfied customers) and I still hold that it is a useful means of communication. Yes, people read it with a pinch of salt, because they understand the provenance, but they also read advertising with scepticism, yet advertisers still think it worth doing.
I think it’s a question of being open and honest in the advertorial. Actually allowing in a little criticism (or acceptance of shortcomings) helps. I don’t even mind comments like “the accounting elements fall way short of SAP, but it is not primarily an accounting product, and anyway the total cost of ownership is less than 10% of SAP.” That is somewhat critical, but it is true and demonstrates exactly how we pitch ourselves.
So advertorial needn’t be BS; it can be a great tool in the marketing armoury. I can only go by results, having not studied marketing, but I know that advertorial is very effective on the bottom line.
Incidentally, sponsoring conferences is similar and also has great results.
“All Apple products are crap” is pointless
That is where you are wrong. Today we can use Apple, Google, Windows and Linux. Depending on how tech savvy you are, that is true for all personal computers and mobile devices. To me “All Apple products are crap” is the truth, subjectively speaking. I would never buy an Apple product, I would never buy into the “Apple economy”, and also I think the interface and looks just plain suck. Objectively this is of course nuts. Apple products do what they are supposed to do, and they do it brilliantly.
There is no objective reason for me to dislike Apple products. Either you have to allow real discussions, or just leave it be. That’s my opinion. I don’t see any use for another “bug forum”.
On the other hand. If someone that loves flying Cubs tries a brand new aircraft, and loves that aircraft too. Then I know I would also (99% prob) love to fly that aircraft. Things like that are valuable. Likewise the other end of the scale. He find Cessnas boring, and the new aircraft equally boring. Numbers and specs, I can always find.
Indeed, we write our own advertorial
Most ‘special-interest’ magazines have advertorials. They don’t have the man power to fill a magazine every month.
If you have someone who fills that space and pays for it, it is a win-win for both.
I remember having published articles in Compaq Magazine in 1991 about my own product.
LeSving,
Uninformed, subjective criticism along the lines of “all Apple products are crap” is just boring and a waste of my time and screen real estate. Especially from someone who can go straight to say “Apple products do what they are supposed to do, and they do it brilliantly.”
So, if I see someone saying “all xxx products are crap” I not only dismiss that opinion, but it lowers (considerably) the value I place on any other opinions expressed by that person, as I can see that they lack critical judgment.
Timothy, I think you’re missing his point.
