Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 6 Sep 2012.
So, to be clear: I consented to full screen marketing questionnaires, and I got busted trying to misrepresent something? Oh, and I'm stupid?
You're entitled to your opinions, and I'm very respectful of that. But: I didn't consent, there was no willing misrepresentation. If you think I'm stupid, fair enough. I've been called worse.
Sponsored features are just that, nothing more, nothing less. For an hour the tag was missing. It's up to you whether you believe what I say or not, but I've answered everything honestly here.
So.. was it 6 years ago ro 8 that CPC/bit-tech peaked?
At any rate, the quality of information, technology-level and general reviews on bit-tech have been consistently falling for a long time, and this piece is just the final nail in the coffin.
There was a film where they said 'if you build it, they will come'
well, bit-tech, as i remember, was built on geeks loving technology, talking about what technology was coming next, speculating about what it would be like, adapting what already existed for higher performance...
The site now seems totally confused and lacking in direction, and the fact that simon would openly speak relatively aggressively in response to his readers comments seems to be indicative of a serious lack of professionalism, made worse by a claimed human error that no professional editor/journalist should have ever made.
I have often cringed at bit-tech comment and articles over the last year, and bitten my tongue about saying anything, but enough is enough. Bit tech, if you want to be taken seriously, loose this 'what am i meant to do to make money' mentality and concentrate on making a site that real geeks and enthusiasts enjoy coming to and reading again.
I'm not quite sure where the aggression point has come from (was it the post one or two above this?).
To be clear: I'm not attacking anyone, instead taking on board people's points, and responding to specific criticisms. I've said from the moment I arrived at Bit-Tech that all constructive criticism is appreciated, welcomed and respected, and I don't think I've deviated from that. It would have been easy, for instance, not to have a comments thread on this post at all, but I think it's important to have proper debate and discussion.
I get that you too don't believe what I'm saying. I can't make you. There's not much I can do there. I know I've told the truth, but I respect that don't believe that I have. I don't think we're going to meet in the middle there!
Furthermore, I think you imply, and correct me if I'm wrong, that I'm a bit of a mixture of incompetence, unprofessionalism and - I don't think there's a different way of saying this - lies. If I've got the wrong impression from your post, then I apologise, but if I haven't, then I'm a bit damned if I do, damned if I don't here. I'm also probably not the best person to deal with that complaint, and it's probably best I pass that up the chain. Which I will do.
Your question about making money I will answer, though. I've listened to all the feedback on the ad campaigns since I've started. I appreciate I'm fighting a lot of historical ad mistakes here, and have made some myself. Just to give an insight, though: one graphics review we ran the other month took the best part of 100 hours to put together, in dedicated lab testing facilities. That's important to us, to be able to go into that depth. Plus, it's fun: we love doing it. But it costs money. I don't want to introduce a charging mechanism for Bit-Tech, and I don't think that's what people want either. So, somewhere along the line, things have to be paid for. We can't dismiss that, and while I suspect I shoot myself in the foot sometimes for having this debate out in the open, I think it's important that Bit-Tech readers contribute to it. There's no future for any website of this ilk, even beyond this one, if everyone browses the Internet with an ad blocking package!
However, the core, day to day of Bit-Tech, is still us writing about, talking about and living the hobby that brought us all here in the first place. That's never changed. I get that you might not like the content, I get that you believe the site peaked long ago. But the core of what started Bit-Tech is still in place, with a team of people of absolutely love what they're doing.
Having spent 5 mins reading through the article and getting increasingly suspicious that its a cheap marketing piece, I get to the end and find out it is. Sorry to repeat so many people. I also do not now have 15 mins to read through the comments, though most people seem to be making the same point. Please bit-tech, if you want to turn yourselves into amd.com, then please just go get a job with those guys instead ok? The problem is you're wasting my time. I dont come to this website to read sponsored articles. Yes, I know the website is free, but I'm a keen subscriber to the magazine too (which I pay for and love). But if you fill your website with tedious marketing garbage too, I may just have to cancel my paid subscription too.
Something happened when James G left. I dont know what, because I'm not internal to your website. I just know that guy was a rock star. Oh, how my heart leapt when I saw a short article of his in the last issue. James, if you're still out there, we miss you so much. The odd 200 worder about low impact subjects like finding a decent ISP is just a bitter and pathetic mockery of your genius, and I hate custom pc for that. But I wish you all the best, and I hope life is good at Scan. Ever thought about starting your own magazine, and blowing bit-tech/custom pc to bits?
I find it amusing some of the most outspoken whinging has come from people with under 20 posts.
Thanks for providing such a valued contribution to the forums before wandering on here to vent a wasteful amount of energy about a sponsored article, of which there are very few.
I think spleen is fine but this is a bit creepy no? Start preparing that restraining order James!
Since the "article" started with "This article is sponsored by AMD." I stopped reading at this point.
Seriously Bit-tech? Advertorials? I know you have bills to pay, but this makes me sad.
I looked at the name brumgrunt and at first saw it as bumgrunt which means flatulence to my puerile mind lol. Maybe think about a new forum name? Mind you a load of wind is probably appropriate to this advertorial?
Should have started 'This bum-grunt was forced out of us by our corporate overlords.' More like .
I absolutely agree with this. I still read the article after reading that it was a sponsored piece in the hopes that it would actually have some substance to it, rather than having been strung together from The Big Book of Marketing Phrases.
I think these sponsored puff pieces need to be clearly labeled on the homepage so that there is no chance its mistaken as an article even from the front page. I don't even want the chance I click through to an advert.
I cant trust your independence anymore after this stunt. Without seeing the contract details we don't know what you have agreed with amd, we just know some amount of independence was compromised. Publish the contractual details and put it to rest.
I think its time to stop defending what you did, come clean and apologise and make it clear what the deal is and fix this. Or I suspect a number of your readership are going to disappear.
Hmm. Saw the "sponsored by" disclaimer and immediately skipped to the comments Not sure what else you were expecting. Why on earth would anyone waste time reading a multi-page glorified marketing blurb?
OK if that's a point to take on board post the adverts in the Forums instead... no stupid idea, about equal to the post.
I am stopping contributions to this thread myself, made my points known to the Bit-tec team. To make happy again just follow the hieroglyph teachings.
There's nothing sinister, and I'm not sure what the contractual mystery is. There's no clause hidden in any contract that affects any of the day to day material we produce and write for Bit-Tech.
The basics are: it is a sponsored feature. It is not a review. It is not a regular Bit-Tech feature. It is labelled as a sponsored feature. You may or may not like sponsored features, but that's all it is. The proof of that lies in everything we've written before, and everything we'll continue to write. Nothing has changed from this side of the fence at all.
That's why it was labelled, to be fair. If you don't want to read it, then that's fair enough!
Genuinely appreciate the constructive feedback here, incidentally. Trying to answer as many points as I'm able to get to!
i seriously wonder if this article had been about nvidia products, it would have received such a bashing ??
i think not
although he does clearly state that there will be a series of articles like this in future, i for one found it a good read, and look forward to the nvidia / intel article that hopefully will arrive in the near future
I've attempted to contribute to the forums before, years ago, however found the impenetrable BT clique so obnoxious and dismissive I very quickly retired.
I come to BT for the sometimes excellent, thoroughly outspoken, and openly honest reviews of games and hardware. It seems like every other computing forum rates the latest and greatest very highly, ignoring obvious deficiencies, whereas I've always felt confident BT were willing to call a spade a spade. You hate CoD and love CS, that's good enough for me.
Though this kind of 'street cred' is invaluable, it can't be bought, though it would now appear it can be sold. BT management, know that the relatively unintelligent fanbois who condone this sort of BS do little for your long term prospectus. They might be willing to come back to BT regardless, but they are, without any doubt what-so-ever, in the minority.
As I said before, the originally undisclosed AMD advertorial shares exactly the same space, style, and two page format as any (supposedly) 'real' editorial published by BT. Yet, you have the gall to suggest it's your readership who have a problem if they can't tell the difference? Clearly, the lines between objective journalism and corporate profiteering have been crossed, and in the most clumsy and unprofessional manner imaginable.
So, what if AMD release a graphics card tomorrow and it's a stuttering, power hungry, 'hot-enough-to-fry-an-egg-on', absolute POS? Will you recommend BT users steer clear, after AMD has just lined you pockets? I think not. From this point onward, every positive score you give will be subject to scrutiny; was there a deal struck, money exchanged, some financial gain derived? As will every negative score.
This is where the disappointment stems from, there's been a paradigm shift, and there's no going back. Frankly, it is somewhat alarming that you really don't see that, because to acknowledge it, as has been already suggested, would go some way to repairing the damage.
The problem is, Simon, that the very instant you sell out, you are branded for life, you have ZERO credability. You're just another whore at the capitalist gang bang, everything you do is suspect, and everything you say is like a turd falling into my drink.
Of course. We've lost a lot of advertising from lots companies for criticising their products in the past. Our reviews are utterly independent of advertising spend. Always have been, always will be.
Separate names with a comma.