Huffington Post Loses Its Way
Posted by Allison Fine on December 16, 2009
It was reported yesterday that the Huffington Post is giving advertisers the opportunity to “buy” comments in posts on Huffington and pay for tweets that become part of their Twitter stream. Of course, this is an absolutely horrible idea that runs counter to the fundamental principles of authenticity and equal participation that power social media.
Here is how one ad agency exec described it, “It’s interruptive, potentially, but it also presents an opportunity for the advertiser to say something worthwhile.”
I don’t think I need to say anything more.
What is so shocking about this idea is that it comes from Huffington, the darling of new media, not a terrified, old media newspaper. What’s going on? Here’s what’s going on according to the Silicon Alley Insider: Greg Coleman, the president and chief revenue officer says he will double revenue in the next year and grow it by six times in the next three years.
Coleman’s pronouncement sounds like a that of a company ready to go public. We’ll focus all of our energy on hitting quarterly profit targets year after year after year. Huffington is, of course, a for profit venture. However, it was one with a soul — until now. The site has become the media equivalent of a big box store – everything here for one, low price! And in the process it has lost site of what it set out to do; provide alternative, citizen voices on politics.
It now looks and sounds more like the mainstream media outlets that Arianna has long ridiculed than the pioneer that it once was. Which leads to flailing around like paid comments and tweets looking for new revenue streams regardless of their ethical fit with the site.
It’s too bad. It used to be a fun, irreverent, alternative voice for progressive politics.
Share this:
This entry was posted on December 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm and is filed under Social Media. Tagged: ad revenue, huffington post, Silicon Alley Insider. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
9 Responses to “Huffington Post Loses Its Way”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sue Anne said
I don’t see the addition of advertising and the Huff Post staying a voice for progressives as being mutually exclusive. If Huff Post is going to stick around and continue to be a respected outlet, it needs to generate revenue and pay its writers. How is it supposed to do this without finding a new advertising revenue stream? Companies aren’t willing to pay money for banner advertising, and I see this is a great test to see if an inventive revenue stream like this will work.
Allison Fine said
Thanks, Sue Anne. I’m not opposed to advertising revenue by Huff Post. And I certainly know that no one has figured it out yet. What I find appalling about this particular attempt is the blurring of the lines between participation and advertisement. The point of allowing advertisers to comment and tweet is to allow them the opportunity to pretend that they are just regular participants – rather than companies trying to sell us something. That loss of authenticity is devastating to the notion of social media as an honest and open conversation between people. Thanks again for your comment.
Allison
Sue Anne said
In part, I’m withholding judgement until the advertising kicks in. As long as things are clearly marked as ads, I don’t have a problem with it. People are wise to advertising now and everyone is having to blur the lines — look at how much corporations are spending to get product placements *in* the TV shows / movies since the traditional advertising model isn’t working with people fast forwarding on their digital recorders. I use CNN’s new redesign as an example of blurring the lines when I talk to people and how non-distinct their advertising is compared to the other stories / videos on their web site.
Bob McInnis said
I agree with Sue Anne, the two positions are not mutually exclusive and really speaks to the need for all of us to be discerning in our choices and diverse in our reading. Whether it is the ‘darling’ of new media or a respected author like Allison Fine, we need to be aware that there is bias and agenda at play – not a bad thing, just the reality.
Allison Fine said
Great points about us, as readers, being aware and discerning. Thanks, Bob.
Allison
Sibergrrl said
That’s cool, i wasn’t interested in Huffpo’s ridiculous tweets about wtf anyway. But, yes, i mind advertising in tweet posts and comments and any site that i frequent will be immediately trashed if it adopts this abhorrent practice. Just saying.
Steve Katz said
Well, it’s probably not just about going public, it’s that they’ve got $25 million in VC money that’s going to need an exit soon. Pakt mit dem teufel, if you ask me.
Scott Anderson, PhD said
Drawing from the specific comment into broader discussion, the assumption and premise underlying this post seems to be the “fundamental principles of authenticity and equal participation that power social media,” and that those principles have been violated by Huffington. I’m personally indifferent to whether they charge a fee or don’t. But what I am drawn to is the assumption that social media is devoid of power plays. There is “power” in social media, and that’s why social media works. The question, as I see it, is whether leveraging that “power” for admittedly financial reasons is appropriate?
Even as I write that, it’s clear to me that many organizations DO use social media for the ultimate purpose of generating revenue. In many respects, that’s the “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow” that social media marketers promote. Ironically, if the Huffington Post has said they will charge a fee and generate money from the social media, they are being more “authentic” than a lot of organizations that present a facade of authenticity only to later make a pitch.
And, “equal participation” as a principle of social media assumes access to and knowledge about the social media technologies…millions of people are still not true equal participants because they can’t afford it. For us to tell a homeless person, for example, “We can have social media power because we have computers and can pay the internet fee” doesn’t sound socially good. And, yet, there’s a reality there. Buying comments in posts is the same power game, just on a higher level. Those with more resources can leverage more power. I don’t like the thought that power differences will exist for a long time and will be misused by some people, but it seems to be an undeniable part of the human condition. Social media is not exempt.
disagree said
I would not read the section if it regularly contained ads. it would be bad enough if they were recognizable as such; the idee that political parties/ideologies might put in comments on a payfer basis is abhorrent. It’s bad enough knowing that it’s common for some politcal operatives to pay people to post comments by the hour, as we know they do. But this would be worse. And I can’t believe I would be the only one boycotting these sites.
The night sky is a part of the human condition, too, but I don’t want to see billboards in space.