• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Press Reset: The Story of Polygon - financed by Microsoft for $750,000

Status
Not open for further replies.

DocSeuss

Member
I'm cool with it as long as the IE/Microsoft prescence stays as "brought to you by IE" and not "with so many people to manage in different cities and timezones, IE on the Xbox and Windows 8 PCs really helps us connect and stay in the loop with one another."

I feel like people are blowing things out of proportion. It's like accusing Rock, Paper, Shotgun of selling out because oh no, there's a Mists of Pandaria ad on their site. Advertising happens. Good grief.

I really begin to question it all though when the first point they bring up in the series is how bad web advertising is... and then they proceed to describe "web advertising" seemingly as it was in the 1990's/only found today on "free" porn sites. What kind of legitimate interest websites these days have giant flashing fake virus scan warnings or 2 popups and 5 popunders for some gambling site? They seemed not to acknowledge any of the actual, legitimate problems that people have with advertising on game outlet sites let alone what they're going to do to avoid such issues.

Actually, I hate most web advertising, because it's getting back to the really, really obnoxious eras of the past, but this time, it's doing stuff like, say, playing a trailer for Mists of Pandaria. The most egregious ads, like those found on the Nexus, actually play audio. They're bandwidth-eating pieces of shit.

So, y'know, saying "this is a problem; also, often, ads are not relevant" makes sense to me.

I am curious what you mean about "actual, legitimate problems that people have..." though. Because the above mentioned problems seem like actual, legitimate problems to me.

Are you talking about the conspiracy theorists who act as though every single ad out there is proof of sinister influence by evil publishers? Because those are as actual and legitimate as my Martian Super Chicken.

Unlike some of the scummier sites out there, which may actually do this, I trust The Verge and SBNation to be quite fair about their advertising. Call me skeptical, but I have a really hard time accepting that every gaming website, as soon as it receives advertising dollars, suddenly becomes a slave to the advertisers, and will only say positive things about them.

yeah, it's been said, but everyone of you "i work in web design" guys on about how this isn't an illegal amount of money etc are fundamentally missing the point of the game journalism revolution this site was to be about. was integrity not to be a part of that equation?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. It seems as if you--and, quite a lot of people here--are automatically equating

i honestly don't care if you prefer enthusiast press, game journalism or any other term, ShockingAlberto's ether-post cited the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, real or perceived - i don't really need to know how much site (x) paid for full banner ads to know this is a poor foot to start on.

ShockingAlberto's post only really makes sense if you want to believe they're doing something wrong.

Here's an alternative point of view: The Verge did the kind of thing The Verge always does.

What I mean by that is that they made a documentary series about this new startup they're making because it's an interesting idea. SHOCKING NEWS: some people actually find "how we do what we do" type things to be pretty damn fascinating. I've never seen how a games website comes into being, and it's been really cool to see how they've put it all together.

Of course, The Verge works with advertisers. One of these advertisers on this big tech website is, in fact, Microsoft.

Microsoft has a habit of spending the shit out of its advertising budget. The Verge goes "hey, we're launching a new website, it's going to be pretty big, and we see that you're wanting to advertise IE. Polygon's the next big thing, so how about you present our video series for your advertising?"

No harm, no foul, and the credibility's only damaged by paranoid-as-fuck people.

They're an excellent website, by the way--this documentary thing is pretty par for the course for them--and I'm finding this documentary series a lot more interesting than its really poorly-done preview.

Remember, one of their stated goals is to make sure that advertising is relevant to the topic at hand. Microsoft is quite a bit closer than, as other people mentioned, Ford sponsoring CES or what have you.
 
lol. You guys have never worked in advertising with Microsoft before, it is so psycho how much many they spend. This is kind of a lot, but not compared to some of things I've seen.

Why the freakout now? Did you not see the "brought to you by IE9" ad before every episode? Did you guys think they were just running those ads for fun?

It's advertising. Advertising is crazy.

Advertising and editorial should always be kept seperate. Most real life journalists have a rule that you can't accept gifts at all. Look, it's one thing if MS spends $750K to carpet bomb the Verge with banner ads and video ads and them using the advertising revenue from them and other clients to fund a documentary.

It's another thing entirely for MS to single-handidly fund a documentary on the editoral staff.

At the very least, it gives the impression of impropriety.
 
Polygon still isn't live yet.
POLYGON STILL ISN'T LIVE YET
That's pretty much the problem: RPS and Giant Bomb has been running for years, they have a reputation of being independent from their advertisements, unlike for example IGN. There's no proof yet about which camp Polygon will eventually fall in because the site isn't live yet, but I would be very surprised if they fell into the first camp now.
 

IrishNinja

Member
ShockingAlberto's post only really makes sense if you want to believe they're doing something wrong.

...

No harm, no foul, and the credibility's only damaged by paranoid-as-fuck people.

with respect to your alternate take: i have not watched said docu, so correct me if i'm wrong, but the hype seems to surround elevating gaming journalism, does it not? the same troubled field of gerstmann-gate, of early exclusives reviewed on a 9-10 scale in some cases, etc - we're talking about a subject that has taken a beating, for many reasons.

i fully grasp that:
a) running a large website takes money
b) employing a handful of known writers from other blogs/sites also takes money
c) MS apparently does not mind throwing around ad $ like it's ballin' outta control

but i posit the needs caused by a & b could've been addressed in other ways than c. granted, i'm not going to say many people would turn down that money, but when taking such an amount from such a source seems the antithesis of your mission statement, the decision requires a great deal of thought.

at the very least, pretending it's a non-issue (or as you put it, only that of paranoid individuals) seems disingenuous. tell me where this is logically inconsistent, because i'm not seeing it.

*edit: GillianSeed kinda nailed it as well.
 

snap0212

Member
Are you talking about the conspiracy theorists who act as though every single ad out there is proof of sinister influence by evil publishers?
Well, it's a proven fact that The Verge/Polygon is willing to specifically create editorial content on an advertiser's request.
 

mujun

Member
Advertising and editorial should always be kept seperate. Most real life journalists have a rule that you can't accept gifts at all. Look, it's one thing if MS spends $750K to carpet bomb the Verge with banner ads and video ads and them using the advertising revenue from them and other clients to fund a documentary.

It's another thing entirely for MS to single-handidly fund a documentary on the editoral staff.

At the very least, it gives the impression of impropriety.

Have the details of the money, what it was for and what it was used for been confirmed?

Are people going off half cocked?

I know that everyone wants to pile on because of the atrocious trailer for the documentary that came out recently.
 

eznark

Banned
I feel like people are blowing things out of proportion. It's like accusing Rock, Paper, Shotgun of selling out because oh no, there's a Mists of Pandaria ad on their site. Advertising happens. Good grief.

Except that in this case that advertising money caused the editorial team to participate in something that hey have openly said they did not want to do at first.

New Games Journalism = At least we transparently for sale
 
Have the details of the money, what it was for and what it was used for been confirmed?

Are people going off half cocked?

I know that everyone wants to pile on because of the atrocious trailer for the documentary that came out recently.

This is where that idea came from and where I have a problem with the whole thing.

Where does money for such a production come from? Vox Media has raised about $40 million in venture capital and the company has poured some of that venture money into an impressive video studio where it churns out high-quality video content for The Verge and for SB Nation's YouTube-funded video channel. But, in this instance, Microsoft is sponsoring the documentary to promote Internet Explorer.

Of course, journalists are notoriously uneasy about becoming interview subjects themselves. How did the Polygon staff feels about being on the other end of lines of questioning? According to Mr. Grant, the idea came from the business side of the operation.

"[We] were like, 'They want to sponsor a documentary series? Awesome," he said. "'But about us? Uh, interesting.'"
Full article


haha

you don't get it.

here's a Q. you ever heard the term conflict of interest? get back to me after you google it.

"Ads pay for the site. Ads pay for every site. It's not especially different from the print model. We're working aggressively to court non-endemic (read: non-game related) advertisers, and we've been quite successful at that"

if only there was some way you were able to avoid doing an inane documentary about your non-existent website..hmm..then you wouldn't have to court MS to 3/4 of a million bucks! the very same MS who produce the XBOX 360, a console you review games for...

wot a predicament ...

They courted us.

And I know the definition of conflict of interest. I just don't think it is one. Newspapers have run ads for things they've covered for more than a hundred years. Go to nytimes.com. Right now, there's an ad for smart cars on the front page. Search the site for "smart cars" and find a ton of articles about it. CNN and MSNBC and Fox News are all "brought to you in part by" companies they have to cover eventually. A conflict of interest would be, say, being owned by a company we have to write about. But on the web especially, for sites that run ads, they'll be running ads about things they cover, because web advertising is hyper-targeted.

At least, that's the way I look at it. If you want a standard that eliminates all endemic advertising or sponsorship, then I think you're going to be consistently disappointed.
 
Microsoft has a habit of spending the shit out of its advertising budget. The Verge goes "hey, we're launching a new website, it's going to be pretty big, and we see that you're wanting to advertise IE. Polygon's the next big thing, so how about you present our video series for your advertising?"

No harm, no foul, and the credibility's only damaged by paranoid-as-fuck people.

They're an excellent website, by the way--this documentary thing is pretty par for the course for them--and I'm finding this documentary series a lot more interesting than its really poorly-done preview.

Remember, one of their stated goals is to make sure that advertising is relevant to the topic at hand. Microsoft is quite a bit closer than, as other people mentioned, Ford sponsoring CES or what have you.

That is a nice fairytale but the Polygon dude said MS courted them in this very thread.
 
I love that you really can find defenders for anything on GAF. Alberto is 1000% correct on this.

After all of this and particularly seeing the writers' defense ("you can't find perfect objectivity so it's okay to be blatantly non-objective"), I will not be visiting polygon, or any other vox media website, or any site that links/sources polygon content. If it ever launches.

It isn't surprising though, people come up with the best explanations to justify taking large amounts of money.
 
D

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member
So there hasn't been a response to Alberto's post, as far as I can see?
 
D

Deleted member 47027

Unconfirmed Member
So there hasn't been a response to Alberto's post, as far as I can see?

You can't respond to the Truth Siren. Nobody from Polygon who were more than happy to post in this thread have decided to acknowledge him.
 

Bulzeeb

Member
I'd rather have a story about this chap.
krc24.png


At least he made some form of impact on the industry. Maybe an extremely negative one that involved Japanese children being sent to hospital, but its more than the gaming media has done.

it wasn't him, Pikachu was the one who did that, he just blamed Porigion to clean his hands
 

Haunted

Member
Someone explain to me the difference between Polygon and The Verge?


Ill-advised self-fellatio hilarity that is this whole business aside, some of the articles on The Verge that were posted here have been interesting reads. Are these done by Verge people or Polygon people? Same company, different divisions? I'm confused.
 

scitek

Member
Why's this site not launched yet? Who gives enough of a shit about a gaming website to be suckered in by teasers that started months in advance?
 
Someone explain to me the difference between Polygon and The Verge?


Ill-advised self-fellatio hilarity that is this whole business aside, some of the articles on The Verge that were posted here have been interesting reads. Are these done by Verge people or Polygon people? Same company, different divisions? I'm confused.

VOX Media poached a number of game journalists for a new site, Polygon.

The site wasn't/isn't ready to launch, so in the meantime, they just work for the gaming section of the Verge, which will eventually be called Polygon. So they're hyping that launch up.
 

Haunted

Member
VOX Media poached a number of game journalists for a new site, Polygon.

The site wasn't/isn't ready to launch, so in the meantime, they just work for the gaming section of the Verge, which will eventually be called Polygon. So they're hyping that launch up.
So it'll be a separate site eventually and the Polygon writers won't write for The Verge anymore, which is a site about tech in general.

Gotcha.


The mere idea of hyping up the launch of a website covering videogames seems hilarious to me, but apparently not to Microsoft. I wonder if it'll display correctly on Firefox and Chrome. Maybe it'll get some IE9 exclusive features. :eek:
 
D

Deleted member 47027

Unconfirmed Member
GAF is their content

Twitter followers for @NeoGAFNewThread:

Now now, we actively try to fool the press, remember? This site is built on jokes...right? Because nobody likes accurate news in our threads.
 
So it'll be a separate site eventually and the Polygon writers won't write for The Verge anymore, which is a site about tech in general.

Gotcha.


The mere idea of hyping up the launch of a website covering videogames seems hilarious to me, but apparently not to Microsoft. I wonder if it'll display correctly on Firefox and Chrome. Maybe it'll get some IE9 exclusive features. :eek:

Don't worry about that. When the Verge launched last year, it was pretty broken on IE9.
 

mattiewheels

And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'

firehawk12

Subete no aware
I think it's because the McElroys do a non-gaming podcast so they can turn off their asshole personalities once in a while. lol
 

watership

Member
Gaf is being very silly. Has anyone had any issues with the articles of VOX publications or on Verge/Polygon so far? I haven't. This PR stuff and their Twitter is another matter, but so far their actual work has been good. Vox stuff has always been high standard, so I expect this to be too. I've issues with Crecente stuff on Kotaku in the past, but Chris Grant and Justin McElroy have done good work.
 
I have a government job that involves processing people's application forms. We have a policy that if you come across the application of someone you know, even just barely, you are to immediately hand the file to your team leader and log what occurred.

Even if I processed the application without any bias whatsoever, the mere fact that I did creates the perception of a conflict of interest. More often than not it's about "what it looks like" rather than what it actually is.

Polygon can go on all day long about how they think they aren't affected by $750,000 of Microsoft money. But it looks like they are. If they were responsible journalists, they wouldn't have put themselves in this position in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom