[quote=“article”"]
When respondents believed they were reading an Economist story, they rated its quality at 6.9 on a scale of 10; when the same piece was attributed to the Huffington Post, it drew a score of 6.1; and when it had no label, it scored just 5.4.
[/quote]
The article is really about digital media brands and how in a study by Harvard professors The Economist earned higher quality ratings than The Huffington Post for the exact same article. Unbranded, the article scored even poorer than it did under the Huffington banner.
I realize this is probably a little too deep for us all here but it just touched a spot with me since we’ve resisted google ads on here despite the obvious revenues they can create. Instead we’ve favoured local supporting vendor content. Some google ads may pop up at the bottom of some forums in the future though.
That said, with this Japan quake story and following the news on it i’ve taken an even heavier preference for Reuters for news… and their ads are shyte compared to CNN who is whoring the shit outta their site…
I understand this concept, but I feel too that any article that is truly worth reading and comprehending will be appreciated for it’s plain and simple quality, not the advertisements on the page. For articles that we read just to read, yes…this is true, because we need that extra push to keep our attention. Subconsciously we trail off when reading an article of uninterest, that’s why big money marketing places their ads strategically throughout an article or page.
^^^ lol… you’re gonna get burned for that and i can’t defend you.
A ‘brand’ is associated with the content or product it provides… you can’t be a respectable brand by providing shit content and you cant build a shit brand by supplying a great product and service all the time…
Most people don’t know what Reuter’s is, won’t click on the link to the article, will quickly read what you’ve quoted and have no idea what The Economist or The Huffington post is about, they will respond about branding, then this thread will spiral to something completely unrelated.
On that note, it is in Network Off-Topic so I only believe about 50% of what I read here anyway, but it was posted by bing, who is respected on these boards, but then he mentions the earthquake…
I don’t read any ads, ever. I never click on ads. Choosing your media outlet based on the ads they run or don’t run is kind of silly to me, but I don’t watch or read anything media related so I wouldn’t understand.
You can have an awesome brand with one or the other and both/all are not necessary. Great product and/or service and/or marketing and/or prices.
Lol…while I don’t like their company, CEO, business model, well…you get the idea. They must be doing something right. 99% of Apple owners can’t locate the power button by themselves.
either you did not understand the classes or your prof sucked.
branding is not marketing. marketing creates awareness or aims to solicit a response. Branding personifies a product of service with specific relatable traits.
You cannot build trust by branding something as being untrustworthy. unless your product is something that needs to be trustfully untrustworthy…???
Either way, you’re being definitive about an undefinitive issue.
what i found interesting was the introduction of ads into the no-name article made the ratings increase. i thought it would be otherwise. so i guess lots of people don’t fully focus on the quality of the actual article but rather place emphasis on where it came from/the brand of publisher, huh.
I’ve never paid much attention to ads and usually find them annoying. a good read should be a good read regardless of what kind of ads are on the page. would the true quality rating of the article mentioned in the link be 5.4 since that number comes from something ad-less and nameless then?
