Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

BP doesn't talk to the writers; they talk to sales. The hand that feeds the writers is very specifically not the advertiser. I can't speak for other companies, but our sales team is good enough to recognize that an alternative energy series sponsored by BP is ripe with potential for conflict, and would likely steer them in a different direction.

I really do hear what you're saying, and I 110% agree that it's a legitimate concern. If I saw a post on solar energy sponsored by BP, I'd be looking for the hook, too. That's why you need a good business development and sales team; recognizing those conflicts and working around them before they become an issue is a critical component in making this kind of thing actually work.




http://mashable.com/2013/06/25/call-to-hacktion/ http://mashable.com/people/lauren-drell/ http://mashable.com/2013/08/16/hdhacks-recap/

So they talk to a "Branded Editor" who writes the intro and then you post it as a series of native articles which is just marketing content straight from Home Depot.

It seems BP would be able to do the same thing which is effectively identical.

Maybe this seems fine to you but it doesn't to me.

It is one thing to have what are essentially links to other sites as "native advertising" its quite another to let them shill on your site. Imo anyway.


This is standard business development - mutually-beneficial partnerships which result in business gains for both parties involved. The series you linked is, IMO, a pretty decent example of native advertising. Original content was produced, the partnership with Home Depot was very clearly and loudly disclosed, at no point were there "Here are the links to the Home Depot(R) items you need to build these things, go buy them" links stuffed into the content, and the content is related to Home Depot's business (and may in fact incentivize people to go to Home Depot to buy things, the horror!) and yet is not "Home Depot is the best, Lowes sux, go buy all your stuff at Home Depot".

To let a brand "shill on your site" is called advertising. It's fine to hate it, but it is what it is. At question here isn't the practice, but rather, the degree to which it's made clear to the reader what is advertiser-produced and what is not, and the question of whether advertising copy is being pitched as not-advertising or not.

Given the chance, how would you do it better?


> Given the chance, how would you do it better?

> It is one thing to have what are essentially links to other sites as "native advertising"

You already have "Presented by" posts that link offsite. Only use those types of "native" ad units.

It works with Google, it works on Reddit, etc.

It has no conflict of interest issue.

You don't have the issue of "Presented by" not being interpreted as "Paid for by" [which is what it is and not everyone will realize it]. Etc.

Get rid of the shill syndication that is basically "reporting on the market we sell stuff in".

But hey, if you are happy with it, go for it. I'll just go elsewhere.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: