You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well, this is eye-opening.
suggested that unless Sealskins/Mongoose/Akrigg/Santa Cruz paid them they would not feature
They are adverts though, you do get that, right? They're nice adverts, for sure, and they're shot well, and they don't shout "SELL, SELL, SELL at you, but they're still adverts, and places like STW are still expected to host them for free to get at us. (STW is the world's biggest forum for mountainbikers after all)
This is an interesting discussion - one of the key issues is that the very people readers are interested in are supported by brands because of their media image and to a lesser degree race results. You get into the situation of cutting off content flow to make a potential short term financial gain, while at the same time losing "attention", which longer term, diminishes the value of the publisher.
The same argument could be applied to articles online or in the mag with factory tours, "people being the brand" like Keith aBontrager etc. Pretty much everything connected to a brand puts potential customers into the sales funnel - so where do you draw the line?
The old adage of "content is king" very much applies here.
The world continues to turn and move on. These videos are pretty much what written 'advertorials' were, but being a slickly produced video, much more attractive to the target audience. It moves, it's in HD, probably has fly-by shots, ultra slo-mo, filmed somewhere really beautiful, all things to draw you in. At the end of the day it's selling a brand and has been funded by that brand. The video has been produced to draw attention to the brand, and that's advertising. Lets face it, that's the reason there are sponsored riders - to get your brand out there and sell more bikes/widgets/things.
This is an example of advertising moving on, spotting a new outlet that's, well, it's bloody cheap if you don't have to pay someone to promote it. Hell, monetise it on Youtube and your target audience even generates some more cash for you possibly even paid for by your direct rivals and that's pretty bloody amazing really.
ST have been pretty revolutionary in bringing print and digital media together, but they also constantly evolve. They clearly love what they are doing and want it to survive. To survive they need to pay the bills, earn a living and have something left over for investing in their future.
I do wonder if the whole video thing is directly impacting advertising sales. Think about it. You can pay for a nice glossy full page ad in the printed mag, or get the very same organisation to stick a video on their website and quite conceivably get more hits on that video in one day than the entire circulation of the printed mag. Why would you do the print advert if you can do that?
I don't blame the marketing people for this, they are just doing their job and that's fine, but equally I don't blame Mark for saying 'hang on a minute, there's something not quite right here'. It's all part of the evolving nature of the business of advertising. I suspect Mark is a bit ahead of the curve on this and can see this being more widespread. At the end of the day, organisations like ST need advertisers and advertisers need organisations like ST. I'm sure there's a balance that will be reached. It's the future. Probably!
The same argument could be applied to articles online or in the mag with factory tours, "people being the brand" like Keith aBontrager etc. Pretty much everything connected to a brand puts potential customers into the sales funnel - so where do you draw the line?
Isn't the difference editorial control, though?
You miss the point. If the "freeloaders" did indeed piss off, this site would be worth a fraction of what it is.
Which is probably true, but without income (either from ads, subscribers or mag sales) there wouldn't [b]be[/b] a site.
FWIW I think Mark is entirely right here - why should STW pay (in bandwidth and overheads) to run someone else's viral marketing?
And see that little P next to my username, you're welcome.
I don't recall thanking you for anything.
I presume you don't use adblock and don't complain about advertising on the site
You presume do you?
Have been noticing that the general trend has been premier members have been pro Marks stance and nays have been non prem.
Yay and nay? what have you been smoking?
I am neither yay or nay.
STW can do whatever they want, makes zero difference to me. I can watch videos and read decent reviews on kit, product launches for free on any number of sites and I'll be advertised to exactly as I am here.
I just thought it was an interesting discussion, which it was before you and junky got all emotional. It's Marks decision, and one it seems he's made.
I don't recall thanking you for anything.
Not only did the freeloader not thank us you think you are a "customer" ZOKES TO THE FORUM 😀
which it was before you and junky got all emotional
Ah the old switcheroo move, bit obvious but you know you gave it a shot 😕
Forgive me for disagree with you obviously I must be very very upset 🙄
Blockade at STW towers this morning? parkings free but a at a premium due to market day.. i m with stw here they provide a platform if the folks are prepared to pay riders producers etc to make the thing the least they can do is pay for its exposure.. i m pretty sure cinemas dont show films for free..
Ah the old switcheroo move, bit obvious but you know you gave it a shot
Nothing remotely personal, sweary or aggressive in my posts so far Junky. That's because I'm not upset.
How can you freeload a free to use forum?
No you miss the point without folk paying for it there would be **** all for you to see
I thought this sort of site generated revenue from page hits and selling advertising based on this and isn't the premier thing in the history of STW. Who's to say how much revenue we do or don't generate by clicking through adverts and buying kit?
What really winds me up is when Premier members think they have more rights than [i]freeloaders[/i] and can sneer at us. It's a memebership not a share. 😈
[img] 
[/img]
i m pretty sure cinemas dont show films for free..
You're right well almost as they pay to show them.
How can you freeload a free to use forum?
The price of admission, as well you know no doubt, is either a subscription or an agreement to the receiving of advertising. If you're a non-Premier user actively blocking the advertising content, you're denying the site both streams of revenue and hence freeloading.
What really winds me up is when Premier members think they have more rights than freeloaders and can sneer at us. It's a memebership not a share.
Premier users don't have more rights than advertising-supported free members (and for what it's worth, don't get preferential treatment from a moderation standpoint either). But I can readily understand why someone who's paid their way might get a bit snippy with those who are sat there boasting "what ads?", I would be a bit miffed also.
I do idly wonder how our most vocal advertising dodgers will feel when their "free" forum goes pop due to lack of funding. Probably just shrug and move on to the next free content site I suppose, rinse and repeat.
Thought this was vaguely relevant.
A few observations...
1. Singletrack does not currently feature many "sick edits" anyway. Have a quick compare of the ST site to Pinkbike's front page if you doubt this.
2. Mark and his team have built a big audience by offering quality content (and owning a hugely popular forum).
3. Would it be a good idea to risk alienating that audience by delegating a bit of editorial control to whoever is willing to pony up to have their video featured?
4. I severely doubt they'll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.
BUT, reading the Bikebiz piece, I think Mark's stance is more about overall marketing budgets than videos per se - and perhaps its useful to get marketing managers thinking about the matter.
BUT, reading the Bikebiz piece, I think Mark's stance is more about overall marketing budgets than videos per se - and perhaps its useful to get marketing managers thinking about the matter.
Agreed, the point I was trying to get across earlier was that you have marketing manager for a bike company who wants a bit of advertising. In a simplistic breakdown they can pay for it through
a). Having a sponsored rider (kit and maybe a bit of cash)
b). Bringing in a small media company to do a 'sick edit'
c). Maybe pony up for some travel expenses
At present that video is then posted to Youtube, Vimeo, Facebook etc to host so they aren't paying for bandwidth there.
they then may pay for
d). Facebook/twitter advertising rates to promote the story to people who haven't already liked their page
How about adding in?
e). An advertising fee to websites who can promote it for you and already run your print adverts anyway.
There are some good little videos out there to watch, I liked the Alpkit ones recently and was inspired by them. The Minipips one is great and that kid is awesome and deserved to be showcased.
Is it ultimately an advert? Yes
Do I want them to make more? Yes
Do I buy far too much Alpkit stuff? My bank balance seems to say as much
Should they pay for the dissemination of their advert? Yes
Do they have to? No, they could rely on the forum to hit the potential STW customers or pay a bit and it's an item on ever pageload for all STW users for a while
I just thought it was an interesting discussion, which it was before you and junky got all emotional.
Just remember that words hurt
[img] 
[/img]
I need a hug now
If you are only allowing brands that pay then surely that impacts the little guys most? Take for instance Cotic vs Spesh or SRAM then we know who will have the biggest budgets.
ake for instance Cotic vs Spesh or SRAM then we know who will have the biggest budgets
Or it depends how they value the exposure STW brings, I imagine Cotic would gain more from having a vid featured here than Spesh
Cy has already stated on Twitter that he "totally agrees with Marks argument"
If the small companies - Cotic, Stanton, Alpkit etc (that IMO generally produce the more interesting original vids but maybe get overlooked by the more American/European based sites) are happy to pay a small amount and be featured then I think it will be a good position as they get better exposure and the site maintains some interest
I need a hug now
poor little man. C'mere you.
I've always felt that sports/leisure pursuits publications were little more than advertising vehicles anyway, certainly none seem to have existed without extensive adverts within, so I don't see a problem with a publication demanding a fee for posting videos of the type mentioned here. Bike manufacturers aren't giving stuff away for free. So to expect the publications that give their products expose, to do that is hypocritical and downright rude.
On the flip side; I notice this website offers branded clothing advertising the magazine/website, which they charge for. I find it quite funny that they might want me to pay for advertising their products, in the context of this discussion! Like so many other labelled clothing etc brands. I'm quite happy for you to pay me to wear something advertising your products, but if you think I'm going to pay you, you're daft! 😆
As for paying something to help keep this website going; that's a fair point, but then it's all about choice. There's plenty of 'free' stuff on the internet for me to exploit; you'd have to offer something well above and beyond for me to want to do so.
chakaping - MemberA few observations...
1. Singletrack does not currently feature many "sick edits" anyway. Have a quick compare of the ST site to Pinkbike's front page if you doubt this.
4. I severely doubt they'll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.
1. No they dont, and most ones that are interesting to the average user here pop up on the forum before they appear as an article on the front page.
4. Id be surprised if they didn't, as above most videos are on the forum long before they hit the front page, infact the front page is usually quite slow to pick up on things that appear on other forums hours if not days before.
The website seems to be ran as a sub section of the mag, a 'lite' version maybe. Certainly the content of articles about industry tend to be brief compared to other sites which delve deeply into technical details or expand on other areas. I suppose that's more a result of the intended target audience, people who dont prowl around vacuuming up news and bikey facts, but instead just want the broadsheet style headlines and overview at their convenience.
4. I severely doubt they'll be instructing the mods to remove links to video content from the forum, I suspect some of you have added two and two and got six there.
We'll see.
The big difference between the forum and, say, the home page is that the vast majority of the engagement and discussion from Joe Public is on the forum. If Akrigg produces a new video, it's often on the forum before the home page and it's the forum that I - and I guess most of us - go to to discuss it (and to build up those views). I could be wrong and it'd be interesting to see the stats either way, but the forum is currently very much a "free pass" for the content Singletrack otherwise wants paying for. Unless of course two and two does indeed equal four 😉
EDIT same sentiment^. Beaten to it 🙁
Bike manufacturers aren't giving stuff away for free.
Except they do to the mags for free publicity and to butter up the jurnos. Maybe if STW were more honest about what they had been given free, then it wouldn't be so bad.
wrecker - MemberPursuing guys like cut is a total cop out. The money holders are the manufacturers and distributors.
WTF? The only person talking about pursuing them is YOU!
I was merely pointing out that they are one of the few parties actually getting PAID in this new model of online advertising. Everyone else is expected to help advertise the product for free...
WTF? The only person talking about pursuing them is YOU!
WTF? That's what this entire thread is about!
STW want to monetise showing other peoples content. Fair enough, but exactly who pays is worthy of discussion and it's my opinion that going after the guys on time plus for remuneration is unfair when the makers and movers have such deep pockets.
STW want to monetise showing other peoples [s]content[/s] adverts.
FTFY. A pretty revolutionary concept eh? When you put it like that.
I wonder if ITV know that they might be able to do this as well? As it stands they just have someone phone up and ask if they could stick their little film on in the middle of Coronation Street. They feel sort of obliged too, as they quite like sofas and supermarkets and cars and stuff.
I'll let Cougar explain exactly what we've told all the moderators in relation to branded content videos appearing on the forum.
FTFY. A pretty revolutionary concept eh? When you put it like that.
Whatever. I did say it was fair enough, but obviously you chose not to quote that bit.
and it's my opinion that going after the guys on time plus for remuneration is unfair when the makers and movers have such deep pockets.
As far as I can see, you're the only person who has suggested going after Cut Media. Anyone sensible would expect the original manufacturer, whose product it is, to end up footing the bill......
I don't see a problem with STW asking for money if they decide that a video is overly branded.
Why should they advertise for free?
They are a business after all.
Seems really quiet a simple concept being made difficult for reasons I don't understand..
As far as I can see, you're the only person who has suggested going after Cut Media.
I wasn't the first person to mention them.
An interesting point would be if Mark could demonstrate that mag/site advertising had gone down from those companies who pay for these vids to demonstrate his point that budgets are being squeezed to make "viral" stuff.
tbh lets see how it pans out.
Personally I would like to see a lovely, well shot probably massively expensive mtb video that is more than likely an advert over the videos that stw produces (no offence like)
if stw doesn't show them, ill look elsewhere.
if stw doesn't show them, ill look elsewhere.
Which is a point that's been made further up; it's not like STW publishes many sick edits compared with e.g. Pinkbike anyway. What appears to have got Mark's back up (rightly) is being contacted by people who've made what are essentially adverts (paid for from marketing budgets by sponsorship or direct funding) then expect him to run them for nothing.
over the videos that stw produces
They are utter pants aren't they, definitely at the low end of the production value scale.
videos that stw produces
Some of the expensive/high production value films I find really quite a turn off TBH..
Give me something a little bit grainy and accessible any day over roosting brown pow & tail whips!
I'll let Cougar explain exactly what we've told all the moderators in relation to branded content videos appearing on the forum.
He's said to ban anyone who complains. (-:
Basically what Mark's just said is nothing's changed, it's business as usual. Posts that fall within the existing T&Cs are still fine.
Maybe if STW were more honest about what they had been given free, then it wouldn't be so bad
Yeah, they could even put it on a weekly webpage. Maybe call it Free-Stuff Friday, or something.
Posts that fall within the existing T&Cs are still fine.
which are?
would I be allowed to post a wicked sick edit with lots of branding on just because I think it's cool and I want to share it with others?
+1 with Mark, it's the whole freetard mentality.
What appears to have got Mark's back up (rightly) is being contacted by people who've made what are essentially adverts (paid for from marketing budgets by sponsorship or direct funding) then expect him to run them for nothing.
STW has spent time, effort & money gaining an audience which someone else wants to make money from whilst paying nothing for it.
Servers (aka the cloud) don't build, maintain & run themselves despite the efforts marketeers go to give that image.
would I be allowed to post a wicked sick edit with lots of branding on just because I think it's cool and I want to share it with others?
I would assume yes, assuming that the brand isn't Jekkyl PLC
Jinx.
(-:
Great minds Cougar!
Premier users don't have more rights than advertising-supported free members (and for what it's worth, don't get preferential treatment from a moderation standpoint either). But I can readily understand why someone who's paid their way might get a bit snippy with those who are sat there boasting "what ads?", I would be a bit miffed also.
I said that they think, not that I believe and thusly comment that freeloaders are somehow a class below.
Boasting "what ads?" constantly on this type of thread is a bit silly and possibly a dig back at the smugness of the "P" owners.
I do idly wonder how our most vocal advertising dodgers will feel when their "free" content goes pop due to lack of funding. Probably just shrug and move on to the next free content site, rinse and repeat.
Personally, not that I'm a vocal ad dodger, I'd log it in with the rest of the case studies and see if any students could improve on the business model, and then get on with the rest of my life. The void would more than likely be filled with something else.
Business is sometimes very cruel.
Business is sometimes very cruel.
Yup. Sometimes you have to fight and push back to stay in.
Yup. Sometimes you have to fight and push back to stay in.
Indeed, and there'd be another case study. 😀
I said that they think, not that I believe and thusly comment that freeloaders are somehow a class below.
Boasting "what ads?" constantly on this type of thread is a bit silly and possibly a dig back at the smugness of the "P" owners.
Pfft! You'll be livid before long. Its a very exclusive club dontchaknow? Just wait until you see us out on the trails with our custom made tops, proudly displaying our big bold blue P insignia on the front. Its our admission to the trails that peasants or skinflints like you will no longer be allowed to ride.
Or you might be allowed to ride a small section of them. But only after you've read the back of some Sunday supplements advertising trousers with elasticated waistbands, and weekend cruise in the Fjords, watched a short video of the new Sofa range now available at DFS, browsed the Argos catalogue, and ordered a book or a DVD from Amazon 😛
+1 with Mark, it's the whole freetard mentality.
Well that's just rude.
and thusly comment that freeloaders are somehow a class below.
Not really I think we are paying for things they also use
They are not a lower class but they may have less class
The reality is if the site made no money it would not be here. It makes money from the mag and form the P, primarily, so without us there is no hive mind.
Itsa business not a charity
£15 for this place is a bargain IMHO
Boasting "what ads?" constantly on this type of thread is a bit silly and possibly a dig back at the smugness of the "P" owners.
Nah I have one of them anyway ad are annoying and I assume that is the motivation there rather than "depriving STW of even more money"
Nothing remotely personal, sweary or aggressive in my posts so far Junky. That's because I'm not upset.
I replied to your comment none of that is evidence of "distress" any more than you replying is
I expected better than passive aggressive twaddle, from you
Nothing passive agressive in my posts Junky, you are wide of the mark.
In fact it was a well behaved thread until you barged in and told everyone to **** off.
Anyone else concerned about the state of STW bank balance?
First the lifetime subscription, now this. I'm worried it sounds like the piggy bank might be a bit light 😕
Well I'd be surprised if the divulge that info, but Grit must have cost a bit and if the forum is anything to go by its probably not the success they'd like.
Also the competition over the years has upped their game, both in print and Internet.
STW still has plenty going for it if the right decisions are made.
P20 that's abit rude. Maybe they don't want to be a free online resource for a commercial company piggybacking.
No offence intended. I love this place, just expressing concern
Perhaps they could pay you as a consultant dragon. You could make them a heavily branded promotional film
The competition has upped it's game both on the internet and print?
Who is that then?
Do you have the circulation/stat figures?
It's all right for friends I don't charge 🙂
In their own ways Pinkbike, Bikeradar, Velonews for web news and Cyclist, Rouler and Ride Journal for mag content. But STW have the best forum.
wrecker this is just you being rude to me whilst claiming to be the "victim" of me. I didn't even tell you to **** off never mind everyone 🙄
Your posts are many things, fictional mainly, but polite is not one of them.
I know it's not a video and not relevant but I feel a need to share. That Mallet DH ad with Loic Bruni which is at the top of my page - major man crush going on here. 😀
Edit: Oh no by posting it's disappeared!!
Anyone else concerned about the state of STW bank balance?
First the lifetime subscription, now this. I'm worried it sounds like the piggy bank might be a bit light
I have no idea; it probably is running on the edge. But then surely that's the whole point as to why "freeloading" doesn't help? I don't envy trying to maintain a business including actual staff salaries out of this, I'm not daft but Mark's way more canny (and brave) than I'll ever be.
Still not convinced we should be bothered about this at all... Seems very much like a storm in a teacup and some seem to be getting a bit too emotional about it. I can see both sides of the argument, but unless the situation gets almost impossibly and ludicrously extreme, we won't as STW users (Premier and otherwise) lose out really.
Chill! It's a magazine and a website. The aspects that make this place good i.e the community, isn't likely to change for the worse as a result.
wrecker this is just you being rude to me whilst claiming to be the "victim" of me. I didn't even tell you to **** off never mind everyone
Your posts are many things, fictional mainly, but polite is not one of them.
I'm not being rude to you! For example I don't accuse you of making things up. I can't figure out if this is a wind up. Are you intentionally doing all the stuff you are accusing me of? Is this s thing?
And there's nothing wrong with my manners!
Junkyard - lazaruswrecker this is just you being rude to me whilst claiming to be the "victim" of me. [b]I didn't even tell you to * off never mind everyone[/b] 🙄
Ahem.
[/url]Dont like it * off your "revenue" wont be missed one bit.
Looks like you're giving advice to freeloaders, to me, in a less than courteous and non-aggressive manner. Oops. 😉
There's going to be a lot of uneaten pudding about.
CBA to read this whole rambling thread - but I agree with the point Mark is making, but being right doesn't necessarily guarantee success.
For me this all comes down to understanding what your product is, and who your customers are.
In meeja this seems to have got really confusing..... are we, the STW massive, the customer or the product? If we are both (which we are, I think) then a balance needs to be found. Do we want to see Chris Akrig's latest edit? Yes we do. Do we want to see Nukeproof's post WC team vid? Not so much.
HOWEVER.... look at pinkbike. They (as far as I can see) are making no attempt to find this balance - and just publish everything. I'm sure they have some sort of hidden pricing structure - but my point is that they don't seem to curate their content quite so much.
I wonder if this gives them a broader, and therefore larger audience? Does the lack of curation drive people away from the site? I suspect not.
intrestin, innit.
Why would it effect us?
Seriously.
then a balance needs to be found. Do we want to see Chris Akrig's latest edit? Yes we do. Do we want to see Nukeproof's post WC team vid? Not so much.
conversely (as we are all different) I don't mind so much the vids like Nukeproof's WC team, (or the syndicate, or the Atherton project for that matter) as while, they are clearly adverts, there is at least something of interest (to me at least). whereas the Chirs Akrigg one, riding in bad weather in his Madison jacket, Madison shorts etc etc are JUST puff pieces. If you don't think so, then open any magazine and look for Chris being used to promote the same jacket he was wearing in the vid. That one espicailly may as well be a 30 sec Madison ad, rather than the pretend "edit" it claims to be...
Can't see what the problem is here
Mark using common sense and business sense and being clear.
In the context of complaints over Tudor/Maserati etc, telling to read...
You want access to our audience? [b]That's what we sell. [/b]That's the business we are in."
So all the "freeloader/put up with it" BS can be put to bed. It's crystal clear what the role of users is and how that is viewed. The audience is (correctly) something valuable that is sold and monetised. Nothing wrong with that but often overlooked in "ad debates".
Are you new here Captain!! 😉
It's certainly an interesting stance from Mark, as until now there's been a kind of consensus that media outlets will happily share free sponsored content with their audience in order to gain ad revenue.
Mark clearly feels this model isn't working for ST (though we've already agreed that they don't go big on sick edits anyway), and he's pushing back.
It'd be even more interesting if Pinkbike had taken the same position, but I'm still keen to see what happens. If anything.
So all the "freeloader/put up with it" BS can be put to bed. It's crystal clear what the role of users is and how that is viewed. The audience is (correctly) something valuable that is sold and monetised. Nothing wrong with that but often overlooked in "ad debates".
There's basically a dichotomy at the heart of every commercial media enterprise.
The editorial team create content to be "sold" to the audience, while the ad sales team "sell" the audience to the advertisers.
Some strike a better balance than others. I'd say ST are doing very well at it, despite the whinging from certain users on here.
Agreed...
...but judging by other media/magazine news I would guess that ad revenues are the more important value driver - albeit that you cannot have one without the other - hence the (occasional) "like it or lump it" comment comes across as a bit odd!!
The thing is though that the driver for the traffic on the site is the forum. So 'we' generate the content. I come on here to read your witterings, the 'original' content on the front page is often fairly uninspiring or feels quite a lot like regurgitated press releases.
If I want useful content (ride guides, tech guides, reviews,etc.) I go else where, if I want helpful input/merciless mocking I come on this forum.
I'd like to use a website and forum, yet in no way contribute to the financial upkeep of said forum, whilst complaining about adverts. I will then find another forum to complain on when first forum goes under.
😆
The thing is though that the driver for the traffic on the site is the forum
Just to add some more info on this point. While it's true that the majority of traffic sits in the forum that doesn't make it the place where the most ad revenue is earned. A content page earns far more revenue for us than a forum page, so while there are more forum impressions each content page is much more valuable.
High value advertising is always delivered capped. This means an individual user will see that ad only a few times each period (usually a day). This means that with each page view that user is worth less to us for that page impression.
Having 1000 people read a single content page and then leave the site (bounce) (Content pages are what we call stories on the front page) on our site is worth far more than 100 people viewing 10 forum pages per visit. Same number of page impressions but very different in terms of revenues earned.
When you start seeing the rubbish ads, like the B&Q one I'm looking at right now, it's most likely because you have now exhausted all the high earning ads and are now having the network ads thrust upon you.
If we can at least book more brands into our ad system then you will see more relevant bike industry ads rather then the irrelevant network ads. Ads that are more suited to the audience they are presented to annoy you less and earn us more.
In the grand scheme of things, when brands bypass this simple concept by creating ads that are actually presented to us as 'sick edits' or the like it undermines that system and we see fewer of the relevant brand ads and more of the crappy network ads. We earn less and the spiral downwards continues.
There is no blanket ban on videos that contain logos - we are just going to be more careful with our editorial filter. Before we run one we will ask the simple question, 'is it newsworthy enough to be run as a story?'. This is in lieu of the more common thought process of, 'everyone is running this so we should too or we'll miss out on page impressions.'
An example of where that is the case is with the recent Sealskinz funded video telling the story of how Traharn Chidley used mountain biking to escape an abusive relationship. It was funded by Sealskinz and featured their brand but it was a story we felt was worth telling.
If it doesn't pass the editorial test then we won't run it. If the brand involved pays us to run it we probably will but the fact they've paid will be made very clear to you, the viewers. there will probably be a clear 'Sponsored' label/category displayed on the story somewhere - we are working the details on that one.
Clearly there is an element of subjectivity involved in what is newsworthy and what is not and I suspect many may examine what we do next very carefully indeed and point out what they see is hypocritical or otherwise. That's because there really is no definitive line as to that judgement call - or rather we would all probably draw the line in different places. But from our point of view the critical point to make is that judgement will be made by editorial staff and not sales/marketing staff. And their motivation will be less traffic chasing and more editorial worthiness.
That's kind of what we are going for 🙂
Dropping my funloving windup online persona for one moment.
There are some people who've posred earlier on here who really struggle to grasp the normal world. Jesus wept.
You tell 'em Hora!
[img] 
[/img]
There are a couple of the very vocal 'I should be able to see and do what I like, but I'm not paying for it' crowd who would be well advised never to start their own businesses. As they'd be in for one hell of a shock when it slowly dawns on them how capitalism actually works!