• Gawker is toxic to brands who partner with them
    66 replies, posted
By Dabitch on 26 Oct 2014, 15:43 [quote]AdAge finally reports on GamerGate, and Alex Kantrowitz quotes an unnamed advertiser's conclusion about this mess, which much like the slow-motion implosion of Britney Spears mental health that Gawker took such mirth in covering, never seems to end. "You cannot win. This is a lose-lose situation." While that's a succinct way of putting it, it's also defeatist. I said well over a month ago that PR and advertisers had the chance to be proactive instead of reactive here and you still do. Your clients are paying you to be able to handle this shit, so handle it. ... Take Adobe for instance, even Adage is misrepresenting what happened to them, as they state Adobe ".....gave in to their demands before fully understanding the situation.". Adobe however, has simply stated that they were not in fact a partner with Gawker and asked to have their logo removed from the partner page. [B]That's a story of false advertising[/B], but when only the social media accounts handle PR and there's nobody picking up the phone at brands PR headquarters these days, it's no wonder even the tradepress isn't getting that story right. In fact, even Gawker media is confused, as at least one journalists have insisted that Mercedes never advertised with Gawker, and another that they "weren't active" -[B] both statements make the Mercedes logo on Gawkers current "partner" page look bad, if not downright illegal.[/B] ... AdAge, you know better than this. Adobe was listed as partner with their trademarked logo on Gawkers partner page alongside other big brands such as Old Spice, Jaguar, Hulu, Bing, Ebay, BMW, HTC, Cisco, Lexus, Marriott, Speed stick, Ford, Budweiser, Comedy Central, AT&T, Marriott, IBM, Logica, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, Google, Blackberry, Smartwater, Bing, Volkswagen, Virgin Mobile, State Farm, Samsung, T-mobile, Warby Parker, Qualcomm, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, Sprint, Scion, Aces, HBO, Comcast, Johnnie Walker, AMC, American Express, HP; Radio Shack, Dove (men), Nissan, LogmeIn, CW, ABC, Ford, BBC America, Yahoo!, Sundance channel, Bonobos, and Focus Features. All impressive brands, but not all of these brands have actually partnered with Gawker. All of these brands are now however at risk of being dragged in the mud by Gawker, who have helpfully published a screed skewering former partner Intel, and non-partner Adobe in their post "how we got rolled by the dishonest fascist of Gamergate",[B][U] just to make sure brands know to get the hell away from them.[/U][/B] Does Ogilvy still trust Gawker Studios to produce things after this? Max Read starts off with a hyperbolic headlines and it gets worse from there.[/quote] [url]http://adland.tv/adnews/gawker-toxic-brands-who-partner-them/1291467968#7SJBLOuUTu9WRhpZ.99[/url]
so a lot of the so-called sponsers of gawker never even had a relationship with them? lol gg gawker get wrecked
Problem is Gawker leans way too much on one side when it comes to anything really. Advertisers/partners don't want to be associated with such a heavy bias.
Thing is half of these not-sponsors don't really give a shit about having their logo there when they aren't sponsoring; it's free advertisement and it's all the happier when it's high traffic site, even if it was Hitler's personal blog. No such thing as bad publicity etcetera. When you have a sponsor and agree to show their logo and fail to, you can get into deep shit. If they stop sponsoring you and you don't hide the logo, people rarely care. [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] Sponsorship is "Money <-> Advertisement" trade. Having a Mercedes logo on their sponsor page doesn't make gawker any more legitimate, I am fairly sure they would be perfectly happy to have no sponsors page at all; they care about the money, not who's providing it. This article is somebody raving and grasping at straws.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46336698]Thing is half of these not-sponsors don't really give a shit about having their logo there when they aren't sponsoring; it's free advertisement and it's all the happier when it's high traffic site, even if it was Hitler's personal blog. No such thing as bad publicity etcetera. When you have a sponsor and agree to show their logo and fail to, you can get into deep shit. If they stop sponsoring you and you don't hide the logo, people rarely care. [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] Sponsoring is money -> Advertisement. Having a Mercedes logo on their sponsor page doesn't make gawker any more legitimate, I am fairly sure they would be perfectly happy to have no sponsors page at all. This article is somebody raving and grasping at straws.[/QUOTE] You may be right, but Gawker is [url=http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579[/url] absolutely fucking furious[/url] that these non-partners are withdrawing support, claiming they are "giving in" to people who they shouldn't be listening to. [quote] I've been told that we've lost thousands of dollars already, and could potentially lose thousands more, if not millions.[/quote] This is in Gawker's own words, on their own website. They're hemorrhaging money and fast, and they're unhappy about it.
The sponsors page on Gawker itself says this [I]"The minimum spend to put together a marketing program with Gawker Media is $25K."[/I] They only care about the denaros, the not longer valid logos on the page is just somebody being lazy to redo the raster with the logos, not some secretly super profitable plot of claiming untrue support. [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46336751]You may be right, but Gawker is [url=http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579[/url] absolutely fucking furious[/url] that these non-partners are withdrawing support, claiming they are "giving in" to people who they shouldn't be listening to. This is in Gawker's own words, on their own website. They're hemorrhaging money and fast, and they're unhappy about it.[/QUOTE] Well the article is talking about something else then, tho, as if they aren't partners then it sure won't hurt Gawker any more when they ask them to remove the logo.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46336758] Well the article is talking about something else then, tho, as if they aren't partners then it sure won't hurt Gawker any more when they ask them to remove the logo.[/QUOTE] They're still using it as fuel for the fire. This is perhaps why they removed all the logos from their sponsor page, they don't want to be caught accidentally claiming they're partners with companies that aren't and give anyone a perceived victory. Actually I'm pretty sure they're on AdSense now, they had to change their advertising model.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46336698]Thing is half of these not-sponsors don't really give a shit about having their logo there when they aren't sponsoring; it's free advertisement and it's all the happier when it's high traffic site, even if it was Hitler's personal blog. No such thing as bad publicity etcetera. When you have a sponsor and agree to show their logo and fail to, you can get into deep shit. If they stop sponsoring you and you don't hide the logo, people rarely care. [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] Sponsorship is "Money <-> Advertisement" trade. Having a Mercedes logo on their sponsor page doesn't make gawker any more legitimate, I am fairly sure they would be perfectly happy to have no sponsors page at all; they care about the money, not who's providing it. This article is somebody raving and grasping at straws.[/QUOTE] Considering there are talks that some of the supposed "Partners" Gawker listed that never were are actually about to get litigious, I'd say they do care. [img]http://i.imgur.com/NkEWwVC.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46336801]Considering there are talks that some of the supposed "Partners" Gawker listed that never were are actually about to get litigious, I'd say they do care. [img][URL]http://i.imgur.com/NkEWwVC.png[/URL][/img][/QUOTE] We don't know what the hell that "litigation" means, I wouldn't bring it up yet.
IIRC it was someone at FP who emailed Mercedes and got a response about them taking action.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46336805]We don't know what the hell that "litigation" means, I wouldn't bring it up yet.[/QUOTE] Use of another company's logo without permission is actually grounds for litigation as they are trademarked images, and its one that does get brought up fairly often. Its why many TV shows never use Google, its trademarked, they can't without permission. And it was discussed in the thread about that, as originally they were just saying they did not support Gawker, but then the mention of litigation appeared after a while. In so far as the behavior of Gawker itself, Starbucks has no legal interest in that as purely an advertisers. They would actually have to have a deeper partnership in its operation to have any interest outside that.
I hope gawker and all the "journalists" involved in gamergate lose their jobs.
Anyone remember how Tarantino sued Gawker for leaking the script for his new movie? Whatever happened to that?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46337070]I hope gawker and all the "journalists" involved in gamergate lose their jobs.[/QUOTE] I, as well as everyone else knows exactly what you mean by this statement, but when I read it, I couldn't help but think of how the media referred to "the hacker known as 4chan". Now, we have "the journalist known as gawker"... LMAO!
the artist formerly known as prince [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] the journalist formerly known as kotaku?!?!
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46337148]the artist formerly known as prince [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] the journalist formerly known as kotaku?!?![/QUOTE] The kotaku never known as journalism
If Kotaku goes down, the world would be SO MUCH BETTER.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46336801]Considering there are talks that some of the supposed "Partners" Gawker listed that never were are actually about to get litigious, I'd say they do care. [img]http://i.imgur.com/NkEWwVC.png[/img][/QUOTE] Oh shit, Gawker could finally disappear completely if companies like Starbucks are actually litigating.
The title could have stopped at "Gawker is toxic."
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;46337198]Oh shit, Gawker could finally disappear completely if companies like Starbucks are actually litigating.[/QUOTE] Maybe, time will tell. They're losing money and prestige, lawsuits could potentially deal another embaressing blow. If Gawker went out of business I would consider this whole mess worth it. I'd be sad for all the innocent people who lost their jobs, though. I'm sure there are a few behind-the scenes Gawker employees who are frustrated at the higher-ups' ineptitude but can't quit because they have to feed their family.
It is like Gawker is digging it's own grave.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46337226]Maybe, time will tell. They're losing money and prestige, lawsuits could potentially deal another embaressing blow. If Gawker went out of business I would consider this whole mess worth it. I'd be sad for all the innocent people who lost their jobs, though. I'm sure there are a few behind-the scenes Gawker employees who are frustrated at the higher-ups' ineptitude but can't quit because they have to feed their family.[/QUOTE] weren't a bunch of interns at gawker suing the company for not holding up to their contract a while ago? edit: yes [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/22/interns-sue-gawker-unpaid-no-pay_n_3483706.html[/url]
Has it really taken this long for people to notice gawker is awful?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;46339543]Has it really taken this long for people to notice gawker is awful?[/QUOTE] people already noticed gawker is awful. they just couldn't really do anything about it till now.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46337070]I hope gawker and all the "journalists" involved in gamergate lose their jobs.[/QUOTE] You would say that you misogynistic pig* *according to every single person who only gets news from social media, doesn't even play video games and thinks gamergate was silly to begin with because "lmao gamers are all kids look at them trying to be serious its really just angry teens who hate women" (seriously, the amount of [what I thought were] perfectly rational people falling into anti-gamergate click bait, throwing facts into the wind, just because being pro-feminist is liberal and they all think gamergate is about anti-feminism is making me seriously want to quit twitter until this is done with. it is just as bad as a conservative who worships fox news blindly, except in this case it's hardcore liberals worshipping gawker and social media blindly.)
[QUOTE=KorJax;46340064]You would say that you misogynistic pig* *according to every single person who only gets news from social media, doesn't even play video games and thinks gamergate was silly to begin with because "lmao gamers are all kids look at them trying to be serious its really just angry teens who hate women" (seriously, the amount of [what I thought were] perfectly rational people falling into anti-gamergate click bait, throwing facts into the wind, just because being pro-feminist is liberal and they all think gamergate is about anti-feminism is making me seriously want to quit twitter until this is done with. it is just as bad as a conservative who worships fox news blindly, except in this case it's hardcore liberals worshipping gawker and social media blindly.)[/QUOTE] If this goes the way it looks like it's going to go and there ISN'T a mass apology from every one of those (what we thought were) perfectly rational people there will be hell to pay.
Gamergate has been invaluable to me as a guide for who is too stupid for my time. I mean, I saw the Raspberry Pi account get involved on Twitter. Fuck off, you're an inexpensive educational computer project for kids (that became popular with everyone in general) with ties to Cambridge, you have nothing to do with this drama.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46336758]redo the raster with the logos[/QUOTE] Each logo is a separate .png in a flexible layout. I'd know, I made the gawker bingo sheet. They won't even really have any empty spaces in their rows either at the end of this when we've knocked off 4 of them.
[QUOTE=Wii60;46339598]people already noticed gawker is awful. they just couldn't really do anything about it till now.[/QUOTE] I think it's more that people [I]didn't realise[/I] they had that power. There's now proof that awful sites can be taken down (or at the very least hit very badly) by emailing advertisers, at least if they do something that's this unequivocally terrible. Now that this information is out there absolutely no-one will be able to erase it from public knowledge. I fully expect this kind of activism to happen more in the future, though most likely predominantly with new-media companies.
Well yeah, Gawker websites started belittling their customers after gamergate in an attempt to shame gamers into shutting up. There's a reason lasting companies have the "The customer is always right" slogan. Because it keeps them in fucking business. [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Impulse101;46337125]Anyone remember how Tarantino sued Gawker for leaking the script for his new movie? Whatever happened to that?[/QUOTE] Didn't they play the political loophole card? [url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawker-quentin-tarantino-were-safely-681804]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawker-quentin-tarantino-were-safely-681804[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.