I know the Times is busy being in the middle of an election - but one last thought. Since you own these sites you may want to think about (if you weren't already) going ahead and providing a prominent link to the sites in places on the NYT now - not necessarily specific reviews but links to the two sites.
I just remembered that when we bought higher-priced stuff ($50+) from Gawker's deals it was around the holidays (Nov/Dec & the first part of Jan.). I bought Gawker-linked inexpensive items year-round but - like many people - save big-ticket items for this time of year, especially electronics and large/small appliances.
So while integrating the sites with the NYT maybe you could get revenue right now by showing your existing readers what the sites are and how they can use them. Lots of people shop from their desks/cubes at this time of year. I looked at the sites for the first time in a while (I've somehow visited/read reviews several times before but honestly forgot about them and never bought anything yet) and they have some gift guides up now:
"Easy Gifts for $30, $50, $100, and $200" - http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/easy-gifts-for-50-100-200/
Another guide has stocking-stuffers like movie tickets one can buy in bulk for AMC/Regal; I bought those at some point through Gawker and people really liked them. Maybe those could be placed on, say, Watching without the news people having to link to specifics themselves? Or the gift guides could be placed on section pages?
I just remembered that when we bought higher-priced stuff ($50+) from Gawker's deals it was around the holidays (Nov/Dec & the first part of Jan.). I bought Gawker-linked inexpensive items year-round but - like many people - save big-ticket items for this time of year, especially electronics and large/small appliances.
So while integrating the sites with the NYT maybe you could get revenue right now by showing your existing readers what the sites are and how they can use them. Lots of people shop from their desks/cubes at this time of year. I looked at the sites for the first time in a while (I've somehow visited/read reviews several times before but honestly forgot about them and never bought anything yet) and they have some gift guides up now:
"Easy Gifts for $30, $50, $100, and $200" - http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/easy-gifts-for-50-100-200/
Another guide has stocking-stuffers like movie tickets one can buy in bulk for AMC/Regal; I bought those at some point through Gawker and people really liked them. Maybe those could be placed on, say, Watching without the news people having to link to specifics themselves? Or the gift guides could be placed on section pages?
3
"The all-cash transaction closed on Monday. The deal is worth slightly more than $30 million, according to a person with knowledge of the acquisition who spoke on condition of anonymity."
The above paragraph, from the Times article on the acquisition of the sites, is funny. The Times wouldn't tell its OWN reporter on the record what it paid? Or was an outside source sought? There have been numerous discussions in this space and others about concerns in regard to the use of anonymous sources. I believe it's often necessary, but in this case it's just ridiculous.
I visited the two sites and do not agree with the recommendations of products in an area of which I have knowledge. The authority claimed by the writer is not deserved. I can see using these sites as one of many starting sources for research, but would not treat them as the last word on anything. I also saw some confusing writing and typos (at least I hope they were) that contradicted other parts of the articles.
The above paragraph, from the Times article on the acquisition of the sites, is funny. The Times wouldn't tell its OWN reporter on the record what it paid? Or was an outside source sought? There have been numerous discussions in this space and others about concerns in regard to the use of anonymous sources. I believe it's often necessary, but in this case it's just ridiculous.
I visited the two sites and do not agree with the recommendations of products in an area of which I have knowledge. The authority claimed by the writer is not deserved. I can see using these sites as one of many starting sources for research, but would not treat them as the last word on anything. I also saw some confusing writing and typos (at least I hope they were) that contradicted other parts of the articles.
3
Even funnier, Sydney Ember got the Times CEO, Mark Thompson, on the record about what a great deal it was, but couldn't get him to confirm the price?
It makes obvious what we readers of the Public Editor have long known: the Times putative standards for grants of anonymity are nothing but a sham.
It makes obvious what we readers of the Public Editor have long known: the Times putative standards for grants of anonymity are nothing but a sham.
1
Why does the Times sell antique silver?
https://www.nytimes.com/store/collectibles/antique-silver.html
https://www.nytimes.com/store/collectibles/antique-silver.html
1
While I do think the NYT should say "Bye, Felicia" to the commenters who constantly vocalize that they don't want anything to change I realize that's a suggestion made out of frustration. I should stick to the mantra of "When they go low, we go high" because it's the way to get through life. So forget "Bye, Felicia" and remember:
These complainers are never going to pay for your product. Ever. Suggestion:Pick a date early next year, inform registered users they have until that date to select a subscription plan. For the ones who don't select a plan, Cut. Them. Off. (No paywall is impenetrable but if you make it a slog and make them unable to comment without a paid subscription, many likely won't bother to attempt to breach the paywall.)
If a subscriber wants to stay and complain, fine. The NYT should to listen to feedback. But how many people hate most or all of a product and still continue to pay for it with no "improvement"? They don't. But some of them are still here. Do a database cross-check to distinguish the ones who are paying and who aren't.
Work up a reasonable business plan. IMO affiliate links in stories that aren't duly noted as affiliate links shouldn't be part of a business plan of the NYT which has standards which others look up to. Affiliate links should and will be welcome in separate NYT spaces. But being unduly influenced by non-subscribers shouldn't be a part of the business plan either.
people.com/celebrity/friday-turns-20-the-origin-of-bye-felicia
These complainers are never going to pay for your product. Ever. Suggestion:Pick a date early next year, inform registered users they have until that date to select a subscription plan. For the ones who don't select a plan, Cut. Them. Off. (No paywall is impenetrable but if you make it a slog and make them unable to comment without a paid subscription, many likely won't bother to attempt to breach the paywall.)
If a subscriber wants to stay and complain, fine. The NYT should to listen to feedback. But how many people hate most or all of a product and still continue to pay for it with no "improvement"? They don't. But some of them are still here. Do a database cross-check to distinguish the ones who are paying and who aren't.
Work up a reasonable business plan. IMO affiliate links in stories that aren't duly noted as affiliate links shouldn't be part of a business plan of the NYT which has standards which others look up to. Affiliate links should and will be welcome in separate NYT spaces. But being unduly influenced by non-subscribers shouldn't be a part of the business plan either.
people.com/celebrity/friday-turns-20-the-origin-of-bye-felicia
You assume that the cheese relocation squad that has made such a terrible hash out of the commenting format has the technical competence to pull off such a cull of free riders. What have you seen to suggest that is the case, Erika?
2
Funny how you link to People magazine, Erika. When I compared the Times Magazine cover profile of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin to a People Magazine profile, Ms. Sullivan's then assistant Joseph Burgess pointed out in an e-mail that contrary to policy, comments comparing the Times to tabloids or People are routinely "flushed." That was in Sullivan's first year of her 3.5 year tenure. So, how did Weiner's resurrection in service of a run for Mayor turn out, anyway? How did the Times' T Magazine calling Elizabeth Holmes "One of the Greats" turn out? Sorry, but one thing at which the Times is appallingly, laughably bad, is celebrity hagiography.
4
Paul:
You're right that the Times never gets the glossy topics quite right. The fashion and style spreads are never as good as at the publications that specialize in those areas. I don't care because they're not why I read the paper.
You're right that the Times never gets the glossy topics quite right. The fashion and style spreads are never as good as at the publications that specialize in those areas. I don't care because they're not why I read the paper.
1
Many of these people with "grievances" are not willing to shell out the equivalent of a Starbucks grande and a muffin per week for the Times so take their issues with a grain of salt. This is like politics coverage: a few people with no skin in the game but lots of time to devote to being negative for the sake of "principles" outweigh the voices of the many who just keep their heads down. Do you think I like taking time to comment on the Public Editor? No. But I know if I don't these people will try to bully their way to running a business they don't own. They are like the NYT Brexiters-they don't want anything to change, ever, yet they don't want to pay for any upgrades either.
I like those stories you've been putting under Smarter Living the past couple of weeks. Judging from the top 20 stories scroll at the top when I visit here I'm not the only one. I guess you're doing the headlines in lower-case to make them stand out. I liked the decorating one, the cooking for guests one and the different coworker-styles one, just to name a few.
So if they're popular, keep it up, make it a selling point - maybe tell people they get everything in one set of sites like Gawker and Co. used to be. Charge one price for the set (a la carte probably won't work, remember TimesSelect?) and ignore the NYT-Exiters. They will find something else to complain about but maybe they'll do it elsewhere (and they will only be elsewhere if it's free)!
I like those stories you've been putting under Smarter Living the past couple of weeks. Judging from the top 20 stories scroll at the top when I visit here I'm not the only one. I guess you're doing the headlines in lower-case to make them stand out. I liked the decorating one, the cooking for guests one and the different coworker-styles one, just to name a few.
So if they're popular, keep it up, make it a selling point - maybe tell people they get everything in one set of sites like Gawker and Co. used to be. Charge one price for the set (a la carte probably won't work, remember TimesSelect?) and ignore the NYT-Exiters. They will find something else to complain about but maybe they'll do it elsewhere (and they will only be elsewhere if it's free)!
2
You say "grievances," I say "constructive criticisms." Chacqu'un a son gout. And I pay, including for Times Insider, which allowed me to spit take my morning coffee when then Editorial Page Editor Andy Rosenthal posited an "absolute separation" between the Times' news and opinion sections. In the meantime, there have been hundreds of "news" articles, particularly about politics, that have been generously larded with reportorial opinion.
3
Erika:
I don't know why you assume that many, if not all of the readers with concerns are not subscribers. I also have no idea what you consider to be "skin in the game." Seems to me being a regular reader who notices changes in the paper counts.
You're the one who apparently has "lots of time to devote to being negative." It's funny that you criticize others for having discussions in a discussion thread.
I don't know why you assume that many, if not all of the readers with concerns are not subscribers. I also have no idea what you consider to be "skin in the game." Seems to me being a regular reader who notices changes in the paper counts.
You're the one who apparently has "lots of time to devote to being negative." It's funny that you criticize others for having discussions in a discussion thread.
2
Lifelong, I'd like to know how Erika substantiates that complaining commenters are not subscribers? She thinks the Times should cut off free riders. If they could have, why wouldn't they have already?
1
These people moan and moan - and moan! - about the Times. Let me tell you, if I was moaning about a product this much and it hadn't changed at least a little - like the product people were at least trying after all my moaning - I would have jetted like yesterday. Yet these folks stick around and moan. That's because (and the choir sings): F-R-E-E!
They're not paying for this. Is this not obvious? Where are the rocket scientists? Cut. Them. Off. And work up a reasonable business plan. As I said earlier, affiliate links in real stories that aren't duly noted as affiliate links should not be part of a reasonable business plan of the New York Times which has standards which others look up to. Affiliate links should be in separate spaces.
But listening to freeloaders should not be a part of that reasonable business plan either. Google the term "Bye, Felicia" (which I was pleased to see a commenter use for the first time in my memory a few weeks ago in a NYT section). It's an old chestnut by now (newly popular for what? two years?) but it's a good one. Learn it. Speak it.
You need to say "Bye, Felicia" to these non-paying folks. What you really need to do is a database cross-check of paying subscribers and registered users. You can guess who you need to say "Bye, Felicia" to on, say, Jan 3.
They're not paying for this. Is this not obvious? Where are the rocket scientists? Cut. Them. Off. And work up a reasonable business plan. As I said earlier, affiliate links in real stories that aren't duly noted as affiliate links should not be part of a reasonable business plan of the New York Times which has standards which others look up to. Affiliate links should be in separate spaces.
But listening to freeloaders should not be a part of that reasonable business plan either. Google the term "Bye, Felicia" (which I was pleased to see a commenter use for the first time in my memory a few weeks ago in a NYT section). It's an old chestnut by now (newly popular for what? two years?) but it's a good one. Learn it. Speak it.
You need to say "Bye, Felicia" to these non-paying folks. What you really need to do is a database cross-check of paying subscribers and registered users. You can guess who you need to say "Bye, Felicia" to on, say, Jan 3.
Erika, I have Sunday paper delivery plus online access plus Times Insider. Costs me in the range of $119/month. What makes you think there are so many free riders, especially in this increasingly marginalized corner of the Times?
How about returning the Public Editor to the same exposure it had under Margaret Sullivan? It is increasingly hard to find.
How about returning the Public Editor to the same exposure it had under Margaret Sullivan? It is increasingly hard to find.
3
Objective, useful and ethical product rating is very difficult to do. Consumers Union, which publishes Consumers Report, has done it for decades and no one comes close their experience, independence, objectivity, integrity and public trust. Wirecutter is nowhere near.
The ethical wall between CU and companies with rated products bans use of their product ratings in any advertising. CU buys every product they test retail just like consumers. A large staff of expert testers work in fully equipped labs testing all brands in each category. CU is the gold standard for consumer value and quality.
But here's the rub: their ratings are nearly useless if all you want to know is what to buy. After CU weighs pros and cons of tested products, consumers are often left with more complex factors to sort than a single "best" product to buy. For example, water filter pitchers. The brand model CU ranks best is similar to another model that's cheaper, better selling, but not recommended by CU. Shrewd marketing of both models spikes sales of the ineffective model.
Wirecutter lacks CU's reputation or credibility. Any product it touts and profits off sales reflects factors other than rigorous testing. So its purpose actually is a form of marketing fraud. It's deceptive and sleazy for a tech start-up. But corrosive and cancerous for The Times.
Selling out for $30 million is cynical. Paying $30 million to sell out is mind-staggering. Like thinking heart surgery fixes a broken heart.
The ethical wall between CU and companies with rated products bans use of their product ratings in any advertising. CU buys every product they test retail just like consumers. A large staff of expert testers work in fully equipped labs testing all brands in each category. CU is the gold standard for consumer value and quality.
But here's the rub: their ratings are nearly useless if all you want to know is what to buy. After CU weighs pros and cons of tested products, consumers are often left with more complex factors to sort than a single "best" product to buy. For example, water filter pitchers. The brand model CU ranks best is similar to another model that's cheaper, better selling, but not recommended by CU. Shrewd marketing of both models spikes sales of the ineffective model.
Wirecutter lacks CU's reputation or credibility. Any product it touts and profits off sales reflects factors other than rigorous testing. So its purpose actually is a form of marketing fraud. It's deceptive and sleazy for a tech start-up. But corrosive and cancerous for The Times.
Selling out for $30 million is cynical. Paying $30 million to sell out is mind-staggering. Like thinking heart surgery fixes a broken heart.
4
This development is cause for concern, but I'd like to address the more general problem of the pandering, dumbed-down direction the Times has been taking, including:
--an increase in articles that promote luxury lifestyles and products;
--the "Smart Living" section, which recycles old health and fitness articles and dispenses Lifehacker-ish advice, which is soft journalism at best;
--outright anti-intellectualism. I'm still reeling from Amy Chozick's article on Chelsea Clinton, in which she commented on Clinton's use of "SAT words [in] casual conversations." "SAT words"? Really? Does Chozick mean the more sophisticated words favored by smart and well-educated people? Is this the New York Times, or My Weekly Reader? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/bill-chelsea-clinton-found...
The Times's "brand" is quality journalism. That brand is in grave danger.
--an increase in articles that promote luxury lifestyles and products;
--the "Smart Living" section, which recycles old health and fitness articles and dispenses Lifehacker-ish advice, which is soft journalism at best;
--outright anti-intellectualism. I'm still reeling from Amy Chozick's article on Chelsea Clinton, in which she commented on Clinton's use of "SAT words [in] casual conversations." "SAT words"? Really? Does Chozick mean the more sophisticated words favored by smart and well-educated people? Is this the New York Times, or My Weekly Reader? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/bill-chelsea-clinton-found...
The Times's "brand" is quality journalism. That brand is in grave danger.
13
How could I have forgotten to mention the new site that helps you select the best TV show?
Don't get me wrong: I watch TV like most everybody else. Way too much TV. The fact that people may want this stuff doesn't mean they need it. The Times used to feel more of an obligation not to play to people's desires for constant fun and stimulation.
Over a decade ago, a letter written by a Times successful applicant was published. It said: "The New York Times is serving its readers spinach for dessert."
We need more vegetables.
Don't get me wrong: I watch TV like most everybody else. Way too much TV. The fact that people may want this stuff doesn't mean they need it. The Times used to feel more of an obligation not to play to people's desires for constant fun and stimulation.
Over a decade ago, a letter written by a Times successful applicant was published. It said: "The New York Times is serving its readers spinach for dessert."
We need more vegetables.
4
"First Draft on Consumer Products"
I see a new section in the NYT.
Once the political season winds down and before we gear up for 2018, the 'first draft on politics' can be replaced with a new daily email.
I wil unsubscribe.
I see a new section in the NYT.
Once the political season winds down and before we gear up for 2018, the 'first draft on politics' can be replaced with a new daily email.
I wil unsubscribe.
2
I'm a big fan of The Wirecutter and The Sweethome. And this acquisition, assuming the caution Ms. Spayd recommends, can help make the Times relevant to a greater number of people on a daily basis. A good paper has a mixture of stories, and the types of evaluations these sites do is a good addition.
6
Liz Spayd, considering how our trust in the New York Times has been dealt a severe blow due to your newspaper's atrocious political reporting this campaign season, why on earth do you think any person would trust your newspaper's recommendation on a the best toaster oven to buy.
8
The NYTimes wonders why people are driven to install ad blockers, then they go and do this!
11
First a yuge introduction, the URL for which identified it as "top news," introducing the reader to "Watching," the Times' effort to delving into the vacuum left by the demise of TV Guide. Now it is in the form of a top of the page banner ad.
That followed Ms. Spayd's PR like piece reporting out the Times' commitment to podcasts, which, in another interpretation, is known as internet radio.
Now we find out the Times is going all in on recommending to us tech equipment through the Wirecutter, and toaster ovens and the plushest flannel sheets through Sweethome.
And another banner ad proclaims the new incarnation of what was pushed last year as "The 18th Annual NY Times Luxury Conference." Last year's almost exactly a year ago, ended up canceled by the Paris terrorist attacks, as it was to have been held at Versailles (the "let them eat cake conference?") Last year's tickets started at $2800. I did not request an invitation to find out this year's pricetag.
As Bill Parcells put it, "you are what your record says you are." The Times is contentedly embraces "service & lifestyle journalism," whatever they are, and offers services aimed at the super rich.
None of this nonsense is what has brought me to the Times for many decades. This is what the Times does while David Farenthold exposes the scam that is the Trump Foundation.
You are driving devotees of essential, irreplaceable hard news away. If you have no interest, just lip service, in being a newspaper of record, just admit it.
That followed Ms. Spayd's PR like piece reporting out the Times' commitment to podcasts, which, in another interpretation, is known as internet radio.
Now we find out the Times is going all in on recommending to us tech equipment through the Wirecutter, and toaster ovens and the plushest flannel sheets through Sweethome.
And another banner ad proclaims the new incarnation of what was pushed last year as "The 18th Annual NY Times Luxury Conference." Last year's almost exactly a year ago, ended up canceled by the Paris terrorist attacks, as it was to have been held at Versailles (the "let them eat cake conference?") Last year's tickets started at $2800. I did not request an invitation to find out this year's pricetag.
As Bill Parcells put it, "you are what your record says you are." The Times is contentedly embraces "service & lifestyle journalism," whatever they are, and offers services aimed at the super rich.
None of this nonsense is what has brought me to the Times for many decades. This is what the Times does while David Farenthold exposes the scam that is the Trump Foundation.
You are driving devotees of essential, irreplaceable hard news away. If you have no interest, just lip service, in being a newspaper of record, just admit it.
10
I'm a fan of (and have used) Wirecutter. They straddle a decent line between accessibility and rigor in reviewing products. It's difficult to evaluate a broad market of consumer goods, and with the "in exchange for my honest review" folks plugging up the product reviews there is a place for semi-pros.
I don't see a problem with it, though borrowing from both Wirecutter and Gawker, it's good if that affiliate link is made explicitly clear next to the hyperlink.
I don't see a problem with it, though borrowing from both Wirecutter and Gawker, it's good if that affiliate link is made explicitly clear next to the hyperlink.
7
Why didn't the Times by Consumers Union and be done with it.
While I understand the link between advertising and newspapers, it becomes quite another thing when the paper actually becomes a fully involved shill for the product.
Sorry. I think this is just another hair-brained revenue enhancement scheme that will cost the NY Times more of its already depleted credibility.
While I understand the link between advertising and newspapers, it becomes quite another thing when the paper actually becomes a fully involved shill for the product.
Sorry. I think this is just another hair-brained revenue enhancement scheme that will cost the NY Times more of its already depleted credibility.
5
Thank you Paul for your comment clarifying what the cost of buying into Wirecutter means in terms of newsroom jobs lost. And shame on the public editor for cherry picking from your original email and not dealing with this issue. The Times has made a choice and a bad one for news reporting on so many levels.
2
For all the gnashing of teeth... Has the Times started giving more favorable reviews to shows and movies because if they do more people will go and so the Times will earn a commission on the affiliate links? Has the times started giving more favorable reviews to books because if they do more people will buy them and so the Times will earn a commission on those, too?
If not, chill a little. I trust the Times and its reviewers, journalists, and management to be honest and objective. There have been a couple of outliers over the years, but then that's why the word 'outliers' exists. If the Times begins *not* earning our trust, well we'll know in pretty fast time.
If not, chill a little. I trust the Times and its reviewers, journalists, and management to be honest and objective. There have been a couple of outliers over the years, but then that's why the word 'outliers' exists. If the Times begins *not* earning our trust, well we'll know in pretty fast time.
5
Not entirely the point, Rick. At a time when there are said to be moe jobs lost from the newsroom, that is when the Tims just decided to plow $30 million into The Wirecutter. So lifestyle and service journalism will continue while jobs disappear from the newsroom. Inevitable result: less hard news, less investigative journalism, more soft news.
Are you OK with that? I'm not.
Are you OK with that? I'm not.
2
I looked at the (apparently combined) tech and home sites for the first time after reading about the buyout. Articles about things I'm familiar with provided some useful abstract topics for a prospective shopper to "think about" but the products chosed for comparison were very random, with important competitors left out, and very often products compared are at absurdly different price points. For most of this stuff I'd be far more likely to trigger a purchase from the Amazon user reviews and even to follow Amazon's own internal links to find competitors. (There's nothing like Consumer Reports lab testing and surveys for big ticket recommendations.)
5
"The acquisition of Wirecutter could not only usher in a new revenue model for The Times, it could also introduce a significant new dimension to The Times’s deeply ingrained relationship with its readers".
Liz,were you able to write that last line without grimacing?
The Deeply-Ingrained Relationship I have with the Times is the ability to read news; not trying to out-click swirling, hovering intrusive adds plastered at every imaginable location throughout increasingly smaller column inches of reading material.
Liz,were you able to write that last line without grimacing?
The Deeply-Ingrained Relationship I have with the Times is the ability to read news; not trying to out-click swirling, hovering intrusive adds plastered at every imaginable location throughout increasingly smaller column inches of reading material.
3
When I was in college back in the mid-70's a professor told the class there are 2 newspapers you need to read all the time, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
My, how times have changed. With readership down everywhere the WSJ struggles and the Times is now going heavily after affiliate links. Talk about a conflict of interest.
We already have those ads that appear approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of the way down on the Times homepage degrading the journalism. Now affiliated links begin to pick-up steam.
Maybe much of the world wants this type of garbage and, perhaps I'm out of step. I want excellent journalism and I fear the Times may be heading down the wrong path. I say charge more for your content if need be but please let's not head the "Today" or "Good Morning America" route. Next thing you know Kim Kardashian will be brought on-board for her expertise in... oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Kardashian has expertise in nothing other than self-promotion. But I guess she manages to make a mighty fine living with that piece of smarts. Which in the end just may indicate how ignorant I am...
My, how times have changed. With readership down everywhere the WSJ struggles and the Times is now going heavily after affiliate links. Talk about a conflict of interest.
We already have those ads that appear approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of the way down on the Times homepage degrading the journalism. Now affiliated links begin to pick-up steam.
Maybe much of the world wants this type of garbage and, perhaps I'm out of step. I want excellent journalism and I fear the Times may be heading down the wrong path. I say charge more for your content if need be but please let's not head the "Today" or "Good Morning America" route. Next thing you know Kim Kardashian will be brought on-board for her expertise in... oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Kardashian has expertise in nothing other than self-promotion. But I guess she manages to make a mighty fine living with that piece of smarts. Which in the end just may indicate how ignorant I am...
5
I have been a reader of The Wirecutter since it's launch. Their reviews are good but not definitive, and the intimate relationship with Amazon is clear. The ombudsman's letter fails to mention this troubling new bond between the New York Times and Amazon.
5
I bought a recommended product based on a Times review about 7 years ago. IT cost me $95 and was absolutely horrible. The person who reviewed it clearly hadn't tried it. I'll always expect more of the same but now it's traceable.
1
In other words as a news organization it's okay to participate in product and brand "placement", for hire, as long as you do it carefully??? Barn open, horse gone.
8
Seems obvious that there will be a conflict any time a recommended product faces a recall or consumer backlash. NYT will have a direct-line financial hit the more a story like that is reported.
This is a bad idea. And Mr. Corbett saying "not doing it presents risks too" please elaborate.
This is a bad idea. And Mr. Corbett saying "not doing it presents risks too" please elaborate.
7
And the gray lady fades into the sunset...to her death. RIP journalistic integrity. Hello filthy lucre.
3
To be honest, I am currently shopping toaster ovens and was hoping to find your recommendation.
1
Harry, it's $125 linked through to Amazon. Just last week I saw a Panasonic convection enabled toaster oven for $69.95 at Costco.
2
Regular and long-time reader of TheWirecutter and Times subscriber here.
I concur that there are potential pitfalls. No question. But I'm not super concerned about them if handled correctly. As another commenter (Gregory Pearson) mentioned there have always been potential conflicts in the old for-profit journalism ad-driven model too. His tobacco company reference is an excellent example.
Further, TheWirecutter's affiliate links are to Amazon. Amazon carries just about everything under the sun. In a given category, it's highly likely that they carry 95+% of the toasters on the market. So there's little value to the site in pushing one toaster over another when they're all likely to be carried by Amazon and linkable anyway. I've also seen a number of reviews where their first choice *isn't* on Amazon. In that case, they note that and they always have runner up choices and various budget options and higher end options too. They also take reader feedback in terms of pushing them to review specific products.
So yeah, potential issues, but I'm not super worried given the history that I've seen there. And newsflash, the Times *needs* revenue to keep doing "real" journalism. If this helps, I'm for it.
I concur that there are potential pitfalls. No question. But I'm not super concerned about them if handled correctly. As another commenter (Gregory Pearson) mentioned there have always been potential conflicts in the old for-profit journalism ad-driven model too. His tobacco company reference is an excellent example.
Further, TheWirecutter's affiliate links are to Amazon. Amazon carries just about everything under the sun. In a given category, it's highly likely that they carry 95+% of the toasters on the market. So there's little value to the site in pushing one toaster over another when they're all likely to be carried by Amazon and linkable anyway. I've also seen a number of reviews where their first choice *isn't* on Amazon. In that case, they note that and they always have runner up choices and various budget options and higher end options too. They also take reader feedback in terms of pushing them to review specific products.
So yeah, potential issues, but I'm not super worried given the history that I've seen there. And newsflash, the Times *needs* revenue to keep doing "real" journalism. If this helps, I'm for it.
5
OK, Colin and the Times: what is the commission rate so we can see how much in link through sales would be needed to amortize the "relatively small sum" of $30 million? And while the Times spends $30 million on a site that is not journalistic, how many newsroom jobs are slated to be lost (per the introduction of future publisher AG Sulzburger?).
Spending on a site not related to journalistic mission while cutting jobs in the journalistic mission? Not what I would like to see. And, reading the cringe worthy "Table for three" featuring Rachel Maddow and Doris Kearns Goodwin referred to Goodwin as an author of five best slli g "presidential biogerraphies," (later corrected without note) and the three time presidential nominee "William Jennings Bryant," noted with a correction to the correct "Bryan." I submit that the Times can not afford to lose even one more copy editor, but inevitably the newsroom cull will mean more of this carelessness.
Spending on a site not related to journalistic mission while cutting jobs in the journalistic mission? Not what I would like to see. And, reading the cringe worthy "Table for three" featuring Rachel Maddow and Doris Kearns Goodwin referred to Goodwin as an author of five best slli g "presidential biogerraphies," (later corrected without note) and the three time presidential nominee "William Jennings Bryant," noted with a correction to the correct "Bryan." I submit that the Times can not afford to lose even one more copy editor, but inevitably the newsroom cull will mean more of this carelessness.
1
Some people are going to automatically pre-hate whatever you do, NYT, so just do or not do (there is no try). Gawker made money on its affiliated Amazon links (before Peter Thiel/Hulk Hogan took that money), presented in a daily deals article which noted Gawker profited if a purchase was made with the link. IMO they saved me time by noting sales like a Contigo insulated travel mug (which was well reviewed on Amazon) and rare deals like 99-cent streaming movies.
Labeling is key. You knew Gawker affiliate links were in articles written by the Gawker *business* team; the NYT shouldn't try to sneak them into regular articles. My only concern is that initial funds for potential revenue sources will take away funds for news jobs. I will say I will never purchase a meal kit from Cooking though I love Cooking dearly (and am making the Cuban Pork Tenderloin this weekend). That would be like me buying a TV from Netflix. Do, but don't waste money prolonging doings that won't work.
As for commenters (again) saying the NYT is wasting time covering the rich and the famous, they've forgotten that the rich and famous have always been covered by (and subscribe to) the Times. The Times can't do fun rich people stories anymore b/c everybody is so grumpy now - but the stories have to be done well like Monique P. Yazigi (who has passed away) did when I was younger. No one lately can balance rich people stuff like she did. But IMO there's nothing wrong with covering part of the Times' audience.
Labeling is key. You knew Gawker affiliate links were in articles written by the Gawker *business* team; the NYT shouldn't try to sneak them into regular articles. My only concern is that initial funds for potential revenue sources will take away funds for news jobs. I will say I will never purchase a meal kit from Cooking though I love Cooking dearly (and am making the Cuban Pork Tenderloin this weekend). That would be like me buying a TV from Netflix. Do, but don't waste money prolonging doings that won't work.
As for commenters (again) saying the NYT is wasting time covering the rich and the famous, they've forgotten that the rich and famous have always been covered by (and subscribe to) the Times. The Times can't do fun rich people stories anymore b/c everybody is so grumpy now - but the stories have to be done well like Monique P. Yazigi (who has passed away) did when I was younger. No one lately can balance rich people stuff like she did. But IMO there's nothing wrong with covering part of the Times' audience.
4
Erika:
Since you mention Monique P. Yazigi, I remember a horrifying story she wrote about wealthy people who paid to access showrooms to buy luxury clothes. There was a scene in which rich shoppers were just standing before the racks, chewing their cud, contemplating shearling coats costing thousands of dollars. I wondered why this was in the Times.
I can do without stories like that quite easily, as with pieces on post-remodeling depression and any number of truly silly stories the Times's Style section has run over the decades. But now they're boiling over into the rest of the paper.
What you call "grumpy" other people call a reaction to a thoughtless celebration of inequality showcased in a publication that has pretensions to higher aims.
Since you mention Monique P. Yazigi, I remember a horrifying story she wrote about wealthy people who paid to access showrooms to buy luxury clothes. There was a scene in which rich shoppers were just standing before the racks, chewing their cud, contemplating shearling coats costing thousands of dollars. I wondered why this was in the Times.
I can do without stories like that quite easily, as with pieces on post-remodeling depression and any number of truly silly stories the Times's Style section has run over the decades. But now they're boiling over into the rest of the paper.
What you call "grumpy" other people call a reaction to a thoughtless celebration of inequality showcased in a publication that has pretensions to higher aims.
3
Erika, Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan hardly "took that money" from Gawker. Gawker's business model included unauthorized internet posting of the Hulkster's sex tape, which itself was newsworthy how? They knew that they were playing with fire, but didn't think Hogan had deep enough pockets to allow Gawker to burn down its own house. Any top lawyer working on contingent could have won that case, with or without Thiel's funding.
Since you seem to admire it, are you suggesting the Times be more like Gawker? At the risk of you calling me a "hater," and a lifetime in professional kitchens has imbued me with a nice, thick skin, good lord, don't do THAT.
It doesn't bother you that the Times is cutting newsroom jobs in a yuge number for the second time in three years, or that, depending on compensation, somewhere between 100-300 jobs could be financed for another year for the cost of the Wirecutter/Sweethome acquisition? The Amazon Post is already eating the Times' lunch in terms of political reporting and investigative reporting. You're OK with that? Sorry, this old fart says that is not only a wrong choice, but my accounting antenna tells me the purchase price will likely never be recouped in commissions.
Since you seem to admire it, are you suggesting the Times be more like Gawker? At the risk of you calling me a "hater," and a lifetime in professional kitchens has imbued me with a nice, thick skin, good lord, don't do THAT.
It doesn't bother you that the Times is cutting newsroom jobs in a yuge number for the second time in three years, or that, depending on compensation, somewhere between 100-300 jobs could be financed for another year for the cost of the Wirecutter/Sweethome acquisition? The Amazon Post is already eating the Times' lunch in terms of political reporting and investigative reporting. You're OK with that? Sorry, this old fart says that is not only a wrong choice, but my accounting antenna tells me the purchase price will likely never be recouped in commissions.
1
I've been reading Wirecutter and Sweethome for a couple of years. They don't hide the fact that if I were to click on the link to a sales site that they would get some money. Many times I take the recommendation and use camelcamelcamel if it is to be purchased on Amazon.
They also have a section in each review that explains why the reviewer is an expert. Multiple options are given - a first, second and value option regularly.
To make believe that the Times is crossing some Rubicon is a little silly. I see ads for lots of other 'Times' things in the paper.
They also have a section in each review that explains why the reviewer is an expert. Multiple options are given - a first, second and value option regularly.
To make believe that the Times is crossing some Rubicon is a little silly. I see ads for lots of other 'Times' things in the paper.
5
I have been a fan of Wirecuttter/Sweethome for several years and I think the sites are pretty solid.
4
Conflict of interest seems unavoidable. I am SO disappointed in the NYTimes for this move. I pay a damned subscription. I expect good journalism from a relatively expensive pay site. This is a move to be expected of MANY other organizations but not the NYTimes
1
Over time business practices of the Times and Wirecutter will tend to bleed into each other like Public Radio's thank you's to business supporters that have now become actual commercials for those businesses.
5
I hope that the NYT builds this with care. Print and digital will not tolerate many more "Value Added" products before we depart in large numbers. IMO, the Wire cutter thing cannot increase subscription costs or the cost of the products themselves. For example, Amazon has already priced themselves out of some kinds of products. I guess only time will tell. The NYT has already bought the company, so it will happen. The management team should begin with extreme caution and avoid overloading the subscriber base with material they do not want or need. Best wishes.
4
I wish i was a billionaire. I would just a give a large chunk to the Times to help them long. I'm not, but i would be willing to pay more for my subscription provided i thought the increase fair and honest.
There's always Consumer's Report or we can ask a friend or two or a neighbor about a product we're considering buying.
Don't degrade yourself by doing this NY Times. We want and need your trust and i suspect a lot of your readers aren't into buy, buy, buy.
There's always Consumer's Report or we can ask a friend or two or a neighbor about a product we're considering buying.
Don't degrade yourself by doing this NY Times. We want and need your trust and i suspect a lot of your readers aren't into buy, buy, buy.
5
"Don't degrade yourself by doing this NY Times. We want and need your trust and i suspect a lot of your readers aren't into buy, buy, buy."
It's not just the Times. I saw a poster for "Free Events in New York: Holiday Edition." Easily 80% of the events were things you needed money to enjoy, such as holiday fairs.
It's not just the Times. I saw a poster for "Free Events in New York: Holiday Edition." Easily 80% of the events were things you needed money to enjoy, such as holiday fairs.
1
You quoted a reader's very good question - what if the best product is one not sold with affiliate payments? - and then didn't bring us the answer.
So what is it? Will you act in the best interests of your readers or not?
So what is it? Will you act in the best interests of your readers or not?
10
In your Oct. 19th column you encouraged the Times to be more progressive “about pulling their readers in close.” This new venture by the Times seems like an effort at connecting with younger readers and “pulling” them in “close”. But now you seem skeptical of the initiative or at least have serious concerns about it.
2
They are collecting data to sell, targeted profiles to sell, not really making money from the advertising. It is creepy and beneath the NYT.
I don't want anyone to presume they know what I wish to think about next.
I don't want anyone to presume they know what I wish to think about next.
6
No, thank you. I want (and pay for) what NYT has always excelled at: high quality journalism. Not: trying to profit by convincing me this is the best toaster.
2
Creepy!
2
I am unalterably opposed to this. The internet is full - literally, full - of so-called "review" sites, and sites that masquerade as objective sites but pack in "recommendations" - And we find out those reviews and recommendations are unreliable because the reviewing site is getting a payoff - often hidden - when it's reviews lead to a buy. Isn't the internet unreliable enough as it is? I rely on the Times to be absolutely objective, with no hidden payoff or "commission." If a product is being sold through the Times, I want it to say "Advertisement." Otherwise, I want to know I can trust the Times completely and absolutely.
3
So which toaster oven do you like?
How about you just stop using the word 'journalism' to describe what you plan on doing?
4
I am certain the NYT product reviews will be as impartial, balanced and objective as the primary coverage of Sanders, Webb, Kasich and others. No reason to believe they may reflect Mrs. Clinton's favorite products or ones produced by foundation donors.
1
Once again, the public editor, whose job is supposed to entail holding the paper's feet to the fire by calling out reporters and editors when they violate journalistic ethics, is back to doing what she does best: stumping for Times management's misguided venture into lifestyle journalism. Instead of representing readers, the public editor makes it clear that her job is to sell the new "Times" to skeptical readers.
So while readers erupt about the biased reporting about Hillary Clinton,The Times' unwise splashing of the email story all over the front page, the grossly biased coverage against Bernie Sanders, the refusal of The Times to investigate and highlight the egregiously unethical, and quite possibly illegal activities and funding of the Trump Foundation, all the public editor finds to write about is how wonderful The Times' management's new business ventures are going to be.
Enough, already!
So while readers erupt about the biased reporting about Hillary Clinton,The Times' unwise splashing of the email story all over the front page, the grossly biased coverage against Bernie Sanders, the refusal of The Times to investigate and highlight the egregiously unethical, and quite possibly illegal activities and funding of the Trump Foundation, all the public editor finds to write about is how wonderful The Times' management's new business ventures are going to be.
Enough, already!
5
Ok, whatever. My question is, why are these public editor columns now so buried? Second, it would behoove the Times to get behind improving the economy so people have money again to buy stuff.
5
"My question is, why are these public editor columns now so buried?"
This column was in the center of the home page all of Friday afternoon as usual. The Public Editor has her own tab on the Opinion Page, which has always been and probably always shall be. It just takes one click.
"Second, it would behoove the Times to get behind improving the economy so people have money again to buy stuff. "
How exactly is the Times single-handedly supposed to "improve the economy"? By being partisan for a person or an issue? Isn't that what people are up in arms about the Times being? That the Times is ramming its POV into people's faces? Or is it that they're not partisan for the right person (Trump/Sanders) to make some folks happy?
This column was in the center of the home page all of Friday afternoon as usual. The Public Editor has her own tab on the Opinion Page, which has always been and probably always shall be. It just takes one click.
"Second, it would behoove the Times to get behind improving the economy so people have money again to buy stuff. "
How exactly is the Times single-handedly supposed to "improve the economy"? By being partisan for a person or an issue? Isn't that what people are up in arms about the Times being? That the Times is ramming its POV into people's faces? Or is it that they're not partisan for the right person (Trump/Sanders) to make some folks happy?
Interesting piece, but really, are we surprised? Does content drive advertising, or does advertising drive content ? Either way, I guess the newest winner of The Nobel prize for Literature Dylan, called it when he wrote, " For the times they are a-changin'".
2
Also on pount from Dylan:
"Don't need a weather vane to know which way the wind blows."
"Don't need a weather vane to know which way the wind blows."
1
The Times has no expertise nor facilities to evaluate products. It had best keep an arm's length relationship and have nothing to do with the products evaluated, not advertise them or critique them or their competitors in columns, and stay away from comment about the value of the company or its executives. Basically the Times has made part of the world inaccessible to their reporting.
5
I have to barf every morning when I scroll past the click bait that the NYTimes website calls "Smarter Living."
I suppose this new development will offer me "7 More Ways You Need to Barf Reading the NYTimes Website."
I suppose this new development will offer me "7 More Ways You Need to Barf Reading the NYTimes Website."
4
Silly, naive me! I never realized that clicking from the Times to a bookseller or ticket agent earned a commission. I thought the Times was just in the business of informing people, with a high standard of objectivity and ethics. Now the purity of my assumptions is wrecked.
"The Times already has a handful of such affiliate links..." SO, what are the rest of them???
"The Times already has a handful of such affiliate links..." SO, what are the rest of them???
4
Unfortunately, nearly every study shows that transparency only serves to make consumers less critical and companies less trustworthy.
1
I'm an engineer. I design and make stuff. I have found that most product recommendation sources don't know what they are talking about. Their expertise is solely based in their ability to sell themselves as experts.
They often trump up features that greatly increase unreliability. They always try to redesign the product. They say the product should have this or that because others do. The product does not have this or that because it was not intended to have this or that. It has something else instead. Then they go off on the aesthetics they don't like. They are all art critics. They use the same tests when they don't really apply and downgrade with low scores are made.
Most of these reviews are worthless. They are the less blind leading the blind. There is no way to pull this off without degrading the paper's integrity. Don't do this to the New York Times.
They often trump up features that greatly increase unreliability. They always try to redesign the product. They say the product should have this or that because others do. The product does not have this or that because it was not intended to have this or that. It has something else instead. Then they go off on the aesthetics they don't like. They are all art critics. They use the same tests when they don't really apply and downgrade with low scores are made.
Most of these reviews are worthless. They are the less blind leading the blind. There is no way to pull this off without degrading the paper's integrity. Don't do this to the New York Times.
26
I also am a product engineer as well as a journalist that reviews products and agree fully with your comments. Accurate reviews are very difficult to do and are based on the opinions and knowledge of the reviewers, not on how well the product is constructed and how reliable it will be. More features count for better reviews even thought they may not be needed and create confusion and increase their failure rates. Consumer Reports does a better job than most, but they often make mistakes. I know because I read reviews of products I've designed and they sometimes are factually wrong.
5
This is going to guarantee that New York Times subscribers can read all of the Times, but will have to read between the line as well! All the (disguised) ads for toasters, hidden in all the news that's fit to print.
31
Bad idea.
Will the NYT be receiving kickbacks from companies just for rating their products highly? How will we know that they are not?
45
Anything can be had for a prices, and, it seems, that the NY Times has just lowered the "ask" further.
They'll quote an anonymous source who says they are not.
Re Consumer Reports "objectivity" I bought a Whirlpool double oven last year, largely because CR recommended it. It has broken down repeatedly whenever I try to use the self cleaning cycle. CR informed me that it only rated the features, it didn't evaluate its reliability!? The Wirecutter purchase seems an obvious conflict of interest and a true Ombudsman might have said so
25
In some ways I think this model has less of a conflict of interest than the current one. The Times can evaluate a product and recommend it if it meets their standards. If not, then not. The customer clicks through the Times link, and the Times gets paid a commission for the referral, and for an item like a toaster more likely to be denominated in dollars than in cents. It could provide substantial revenue if readers grow to trust the Times' recommendations over those of competing services.
The standard advertising model has always had inherent conflicts of interest. It's tough to do hard-hitting stories if they may cost you ad revenue. Did newspapers hold back on investigating the dangers of tobacco when cigarette companies were among their major advertisers?
The standard advertising model has always had inherent conflicts of interest. It's tough to do hard-hitting stories if they may cost you ad revenue. Did newspapers hold back on investigating the dangers of tobacco when cigarette companies were among their major advertisers?
22
Since when are we to be asked to rely on a daily newspaper to tell us that a product is reliable and worth the money?
Sorry...it's just more "opinion" journalism that the Times for which the times will be paid on a "per click" basis.
Sorry...it's just more "opinion" journalism that the Times for which the times will be paid on a "per click" basis.
3
Why doesn't The Times recommend Consumer Reports which would cover most if not all products "reviewed?" While I realize the Gray Lady's ship is financially sinking this is only temporarily plugging one small hole which amounts to bailing out the ocean with a bucket. Have you considered passing the hat?
6
The Times continues to move further and further away from the things that made it great and the reasons why I've been a reader for 42 years, excellence in journalism first and foremost. There are recipes, product recommendations, TV show recaps and endless features on lifestyles of the rich and famous available from countless sources, many of which have far more experience in those realms than the Times. What happened to being the nation's paper of record and a benchmark for well-crafted writing and outstanding, thorough reporting?
Revenue has gone down for all the reasons mentioned in this article and others over the past few years, but they always overlook readership declines due to declining overall quality of writing and reportage. Adding more of what has helped to bring the Times down isn't a good strategy.
Revenue has gone down for all the reasons mentioned in this article and others over the past few years, but they always overlook readership declines due to declining overall quality of writing and reportage. Adding more of what has helped to bring the Times down isn't a good strategy.
66
One of the reasons why fewer people are reading the NY Times is that fewer people are willing to put up with the dumbing-down that has already occurred.
It would be interesting to see the Times subscription figures for the period covering the tenure of Executive Editor Dean Basquet. It is under his leadership that the Times has turned it reportorial and editorial forces into agenda advocates instead of remaining good journalists.
The Times has shot itself in the foot, and it would be wise for the Times to put the gun down before they manage to do even more serious harm.
It would be interesting to see the Times subscription figures for the period covering the tenure of Executive Editor Dean Basquet. It is under his leadership that the Times has turned it reportorial and editorial forces into agenda advocates instead of remaining good journalists.
The Times has shot itself in the foot, and it would be wise for the Times to put the gun down before they manage to do even more serious harm.
8
Native Advertising - disguised advertising, usually online, that matches the form and function of the platform. Example: The New York Times Public Editor using her platform to address how and why the New York Times should be trusted.
16
Thank you for quoting me. In the e-mail I wrote, I also rather pointedly contrasted the "relatively small sum," a characterization with which I take issue, with the upcoming, as yet unnumbered, raft of newsroom buyouts coming soon (as per your PR introduction of publisher designate AG Sulzburger. I pointed out that if the buyout targets had average compensation (salary + benefits) of $200,000/year, the price of Wirecutter amounts to the cost of 150 newsroom jobs, or half of the record cull from two years ago.
So, the Times views this as a moneymaker. But nowhere here, in Sydney Ember's article, or on the Wirecutter's site does it specify the size of the "commission earned," should the reader click through to buy a reviewed item. Is it 10%? 1%? If the commission is 10%, the Wirecutter's readers would only have to link through to buy $300 million in sales. If it's 1%, then we're only talking $3 billion. Good luck with that.
But the Times is making a conscious choice to do "lifestyle journalism" over the hard journalism once provided by newsroom reporters, and I object. The Times used to do journalism not found anywhere else, and THAT, is what distinguished the Times from other outlets. There are a number of sites doing work similar to the Wirecutter. The only way your digital subscription model works is if you maintain and grow readership. It seems like podcasts and product recommendations are the direction Times "leadership" is taking. That will not maintain indispensability.
So, the Times views this as a moneymaker. But nowhere here, in Sydney Ember's article, or on the Wirecutter's site does it specify the size of the "commission earned," should the reader click through to buy a reviewed item. Is it 10%? 1%? If the commission is 10%, the Wirecutter's readers would only have to link through to buy $300 million in sales. If it's 1%, then we're only talking $3 billion. Good luck with that.
But the Times is making a conscious choice to do "lifestyle journalism" over the hard journalism once provided by newsroom reporters, and I object. The Times used to do journalism not found anywhere else, and THAT, is what distinguished the Times from other outlets. There are a number of sites doing work similar to the Wirecutter. The only way your digital subscription model works is if you maintain and grow readership. It seems like podcasts and product recommendations are the direction Times "leadership" is taking. That will not maintain indispensability.
51
"The Times used to do journalism not found anywhere else, and THAT, is what distinguished the Times from other outlets."
This is exactly why I am a Times subscriber, and not to other news sources, print or online. It seems a slippery slope down which The Times is descending. I refer to quality of journalism, not to the other stuff, which is noise. Except for money, but please, Times leadership, don't lose sight of your mission in the pursuit of it.
This is exactly why I am a Times subscriber, and not to other news sources, print or online. It seems a slippery slope down which The Times is descending. I refer to quality of journalism, not to the other stuff, which is noise. Except for money, but please, Times leadership, don't lose sight of your mission in the pursuit of it.
4
Ken, just remember that in buying, then selling the Boston Globe, it ended up losing the Times a couple of hundred million dollars.
Do I have any confidence that the Times' business people won't run an "unsinkable" journalistic ocean liner into a financial iceberg? No, I do not.
Do I have any confidence that the Times' business people won't run an "unsinkable" journalistic ocean liner into a financial iceberg? No, I do not.
1
"If it is done well — with serious attention paid to the reader and the quality of the recommendation — it could be of value to The Times’s audience. Clearly Wirecutter’s audience felt that way."
Fox News' audience feel that what they're watching is of value to them, too. However, The Times' audience feel that what Fox offers up is worse than useless. So, what Wirecutter's audience think about that website's conflict of interest is completely irrelevant to The Times' readers, and should be to its owner and executives, too.
Here's a model for honest product reviews: Consumer Reports, which accepts no advertisements and is wholly supported by subscription. They're available at your local library as well.
Fox News' audience feel that what they're watching is of value to them, too. However, The Times' audience feel that what Fox offers up is worse than useless. So, what Wirecutter's audience think about that website's conflict of interest is completely irrelevant to The Times' readers, and should be to its owner and executives, too.
Here's a model for honest product reviews: Consumer Reports, which accepts no advertisements and is wholly supported by subscription. They're available at your local library as well.
36
Consumer Reports has done this for decades and successfulloy maintained its independence and integrity. If what comes through in the NYT is recommendations for products which return income to the paper, this is not independent. This is pay-to-play in yet another guise.
47
As a Consumer Reports subscriber since 1976, let me observe that CR is getting less and less useful and relevant. They still have some good articles, but their reviews of consumer goods and such, e.g., TVs and beer, are completely useless since much better information as available on the internet (if one knows how to distinguish between real and fake reviews).
So what type of toaster oven do you recommend?
23
I think the Public Editor should know the difference between "abjectly" and "adamantly."
21
In the old days, they used to have copy editors to catch these kinds of mistakes.
6
And between "circled around" and "centered on."
1
Consumer Reports, supposedly independent, now has a link to a site, Blipp, thus "allowing you to shop for products we recommend." This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest and is another example of how the the new leadership there is destroying the brand, IMHO.
27
I was not aware Consumer Reports did that. That is not good.
But in going to the Wirecutter's website, I am doubly troubled. They only recommend "things we love." But there may be something equally as good, or better out there, or even something better for a specific reader, and a Wirecutter reader would never find that out.
At least Consumer Reports reviews in a side by side basis a range of products, the good, the bad and the ugly. It details what is good or bad about a number of aspects of each product.
On the other hand, here is the Wirecutter's rationalization:
"Doesn’t getting affiliate fees create a conflict of interest and bias?
We think it does create a bias—a bias to write about a lot of things with affiliate codes threaded in them. But we think it’s less of a conflict of interest than traditional advertising. Affiliate pay does not, in our opinion, create a worse situation than running a site based on pageviews, because publishers still get paid for ads on stories that are hyped up, unnecessarily controversial, or broken into multiple pages. Even stories that are flat-out incorrect. We know from past experience."
They go on to say that if they "recommend a product that sucks," people will return it and they will get nothing. I am sorry, but rather than allay my fears about conflict of interest, this utterly confirms them. They ADMIT bias, proclaiming it, but say that drawing a commission is supposed to be better than advertising. Sigh. Epic fail.
But in going to the Wirecutter's website, I am doubly troubled. They only recommend "things we love." But there may be something equally as good, or better out there, or even something better for a specific reader, and a Wirecutter reader would never find that out.
At least Consumer Reports reviews in a side by side basis a range of products, the good, the bad and the ugly. It details what is good or bad about a number of aspects of each product.
On the other hand, here is the Wirecutter's rationalization:
"Doesn’t getting affiliate fees create a conflict of interest and bias?
We think it does create a bias—a bias to write about a lot of things with affiliate codes threaded in them. But we think it’s less of a conflict of interest than traditional advertising. Affiliate pay does not, in our opinion, create a worse situation than running a site based on pageviews, because publishers still get paid for ads on stories that are hyped up, unnecessarily controversial, or broken into multiple pages. Even stories that are flat-out incorrect. We know from past experience."
They go on to say that if they "recommend a product that sucks," people will return it and they will get nothing. I am sorry, but rather than allay my fears about conflict of interest, this utterly confirms them. They ADMIT bias, proclaiming it, but say that drawing a commission is supposed to be better than advertising. Sigh. Epic fail.
22
Yes, this month's Consumer Reports worries me. They have a section of recipes... OK, they've done that now and then, but always as a chance to show readers how to make inexpensively, at home, some of the prepackaged foods they've evaluated.
But this time they're pushing products within recipes. Not just "add six ounces of dark chocolate" but add six ounces of Very Expensive Brand Chocolate, which they claim their staff of foodies just adore.
Sure looks like advertising to me... And it's just one example of how CU has stopped reviewing items hoi polloi like me can afford, and seem to be targeting the 1%ers with money to burn (or bake?).
But this time they're pushing products within recipes. Not just "add six ounces of dark chocolate" but add six ounces of Very Expensive Brand Chocolate, which they claim their staff of foodies just adore.
Sure looks like advertising to me... And it's just one example of how CU has stopped reviewing items hoi polloi like me can afford, and seem to be targeting the 1%ers with money to burn (or bake?).
25
Whatever happened to the word 'from'?
"That’s how it makes its money — not off ads but by a model called “affiliate links.”
"But if it’s going to start giving the thumbs-up to the best toaster oven — while making money off the sale ..".
I see this everywhere, but when I see it in the NYT's it is particularly jarring. Is this the new standard?