Content or Collateral?
December 27, 2009
I navigated to a Network World slideshow called “Microsoft Rebels.” The meaning of the word is closer to Confederate soldiers, not the poem by Padraic Pearse.
I was correct in my thought that this would be a Web page with content that forced me to read a paragraph, click, see and ad, dismiss an ad, read the content, repeat. These types of articles are designed to annoy me and produce page views for the site operator. Annoying but that’s part of life in the good old US of A today.
The slideshow was a combination of text and images. Each slide presented a bit of information, a picture, and a subtle jab at Microsoft. A number of the slides presented a cheerful Google logo but there were some Linux plugs as well. The theme was “Google Apps and Linux save you money.”
The question for me was, “Is this slideshow content or marketing collateral?” There were some useful factoids in the write up; for example:
In October, the Los Angeles City Council approved a $7.25 million five-year deal Tuesday in which the city will adopt Gmail and other Google Apps. Ironically, just over $1.5 million for the project came from the payout of a 2006 class action lawsuit between the city and Microsoft. Microsoft paid $70 million three years ago to settle the suit, brought on behalf of six California counties and cities who alleged that Microsoft used its monopoly position to overcharge for software.
On the whole, I think the slideshow is a commercial presented as an objective article. Surprise, surprise.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 27, 2009
Oyez, oyez, I wish to disclose that I was not paid to write this article. I further disclose that I did not pay any attention to the advertisements on the page. Furthermore, I am not convinced the data are spot on. Who is the oversight authority? I know, I know. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, an outfit that digs for the truth.
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
