apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I guess I read your posts and ads like I would any magazine or newspaper - with a hope that there is a division between 'church and state.' (I don't read magalogues because there is no division - the articles are just hawking the company wares).

There are plenty of ads bombarding me on your site, and I would hope that they paid well - some are from TV stations in my area, as well as banks. Plus there are the Google ads in the right-hand corner. So having a 'sponsored post,' no matter how well tagged, just feels like I should be suspicious of all of your posts.

You've put me on edge now.

I don't mind. Thanks for letting us know when they're sponsored, and hopefully we're all grown up enough to make our own decisions!

Love the blog & all the free help. Do what you have to (in moderation!) to keep it coming!

thanks for the heads up. What about the advertising column that comes up over the AT text and obscures the information - any hope of fixing that soon? It seems random, like right now it's for Ann Taylor . . .

>And we are only posting one sponsored post per week out of the
>over 400 posts that go up on the AT sites during the same time.

Um, that's like saying, yeah, I know hitting people is wrong, but I only do it once a week!

Not convinced. Please stop.

Oh, and [subliminal message] buy tons more things from Ikea [/end subliminal message] happy last day of April!

I just have to say that the ads do not bother me at all. They're not what I'm looking at, and for me, they don't take away from the apartment therapy experience.

Thank you.

Judie,

which column is that? sometimes one of our writers doesn't close a link and it throws the site out of alignment, but we fix everyone we see. Is it happening now and what browser are you using?

News flash - websites cost money! Either AT will have to find a balance with advertising on the site or begin charging for membership.

I, for one, would like to see the site stay free and am willing to deal with some ads. Cripes people, it's the internet, don't act like you've never seen an ad before.

I don't like sponsored posts either. Why not just have them buy ad space? And, you've grown a lot AT. If some of the sister sites aren't doing so well, maybe you should reconsider them. Why is growth the continual focus? As one so often says about design and sustainability: quality over quantity my friends.

Also, it seems like the product was ill chosen which makes me suspicious. I've been on AT for years and the R&B products that were chosen were staid, boring and frankly pottery barn-esque bulky. They really aren't the carefully edited AT choices that your editors usually point us to.

I know it's not even that different from the "giveaways" - maybe the sponsored post advertisers could give a AT discount if it leads to clicks for them?

I never noticed the advertising on the site before now...

I would think, like TannerAdair, that all of us have been using the interent and blogs in particular for long enough to ignore what we aren't interested in and focus on other things. I couldn't even tell you one advertisement on the current page...not the client or an image from it. That means, to me, that none of the ads are overly animated or distract from the content of the blog which I appreciate.

I feel that the site makes a clear distinction between paid advertising and blog material even with sponsored ads and, really, when you think about it, it's only going to benefit the readers in the long run. Plus, there is enough of a check and balance system at AT that if there is a common problem with a sponored shop or its products, it will come out in the comments.

Unfortunately, we have to face the fact that in order to enjoy most forms of media, we'll have to deal with ads. Just like you'd skip ads in a magazine or junkmail everyday, scan the blog for content that interests you and move on.

This is why I love you and this website, Maxwell. Classy really to post this, be open, and listen to the feedback.

I think sponsored posts are fine if people are free to post comments, especially when negative (service, costs, waiting times). That would balance it out.

Hm.

Best of luck integrating your officially sponsored posts into the tone of the general site--with its often "sponsored"-sounding posts (not to say they are sponsored, just that they sometimes sound like they are).

I would highly recommend giving a background colour to the post that is sponsored (like the grey behind the Post a Comment box in which I am currently typing) to really set the boundaries of the sponsorship. That will help those readers who wish to skip know where to skip.

agree with Nathan -- i'd rather read or ignore "sponsored ads" than pay a membership to get on AT!

I don't mind a sponsored post, if I know it's a sponsored post. And thus far, I've appreciated the content of them. The last one I read was for hand-made casegoods carried by Room & Board. The cool thing about it, on balance, is that readers get to respond to the sponsor -- the ad doesn't live in a vacuum. If readers don't like the product being shown, they can say "hey sponsor, this actually sucks!" Tell me what other sponsored medium give you that option?? not radio, not tv, magazines, newspapers, bus-boards, bill-boards, etc.

I think anyone who comes here thinking they're getting a bias free, consumerism-free, totally granola experience isn't in touch with what this site is. It's not a home-grown group of friends getting together to hang out and socialize without any kind of sponsorship.

For example, the feedback and polls provide demographic information directly back to those sponsors. DUH. Does it bother me? Not a bit. If anyone thought reader polls were for warm fuzzies, ya'll are deluding yourselves.

"How many of you use air freshener?" - Glade wants to know.
"How often do you buy new towels?" - Bed & Bath wants to know.
"Is this design concept hot?" - Furniture retailers want to know.

I think the beauty of AT is that there's a retailer-consumer feedback cycle. I get to hear about all kinds of neat stuff and get feedback on my projects for free. In return, I provide some marketers with a little info about my interests. I wish I could get Domino for free in exchange for telling them what stuff in their publication turns me on or off.

hey business is business. you have to turn a profit and i want to get to enjoy your web site every day so do what you have to do. i figure the sponsored posts will be just as enjoyable as the non sponsored ones anyway

Why do people keep talking about paying for membership? this was never raised as far as I can tell. In general, it seems like readers don't mind ads, but resent the blending of the blog/ads in sponsored posts specifically.

I think further distinguishing the sponsored posts like Nora Rocket suggested would be a start, but, AT, please make sure that the product is really AT worthy. Those tables from R&B are just cheesy, imo. Also, perhaps thinking carefully about the areas/sites that aren't doing so hot warrants consideration.

My DH is a internet marketing director managing several sites under a main brand and just had to axe one site and reconfigure another to deal with lack of revenue on those sites - and they are a huge non-profit so have 0 access to ad revenues.

I still love you though, AT.

I don't mind advertising I just disagree with the way its being done in the "sponsered posts." It seems sneaky. I don't need a glowing review of products, give me a box with a picture I can click on if I'm interested.

I'm with Katfield - I think us internet savvy folk get used to tuning out the adds on all blogs. That said I will say thanks Macys greatly for advertising their matress sale here. I got the $1400 matress I was saving for at $650 after all the various discounts (get the credit card etc). Happy i didnt tune that one out!

I must be really good at tuning out the ads as I have no idea if I have seen a sponsored post. Must go look now.

Ads are a part of the internet - sometimes I see something I follow up on (like the cool steel desk from a few weeks ago) but mostly they do not get past my eye-filter.

If a post is rad, I'll read it & care. If a post is not rad, I will ignore it & not give it a second thought.

Regardless of whether what is posted is a sponsored ad or a glowing personal review, this isn't my bible & I can filter things for myself.

Just knowing that you care enough not to advertise crap means something to me.

Cool! Make money! Live fancy!

I agree with many of the above comments. Advertising is fine, but it should clearly be advertising. I find too much overlap with advertising posts written by AT. It's too short of a stretch between that and unmarked favorable reviews you're paid to write. Let the advertisers advertise; otherwise, it makes me skeptical of all the rest of AT's reviews.

I have no problem with sponsored posts. You have said you will make it clear when one is sponsored, which is the only request I would make.

You have to make money through advertising in order to keep this site free to all of us readers. The quality of what I see here is more than worth it.

(I hope you generate enough additional revenue to give yourselves a nice bonus - assuming none of you are secretly oil industry executives.)

Glad to hear that these will only be once a week and will be clearly identifiable. As long as that's the case - I won't mind them at all.

I appreciate that AT is putting time and effort into this rather than slathering the site in tons of unrelated ads.

Personally, I am more annoyed with "re-runs" of original posts (especially House Tours!!) than I am with sponsored posts.

I agree that there needs to be a really clear delineation between regular content and sponsored content. Otherwise, I think you run the risk of watering down or sabotaging the voice you've developed and the audience you've cultivated.

In my opinion, the R&B sponsored post did not make that distinction clear. It needs to be more obvious.

Also in my opinion, the big red button during the last contest erroneously drew a distinction between it as an ad and the post that contained it. I remember people missing the slideshow because they ignored the link, thinking it was an ad.

Both of those are just issues in terms of design delineation and hierarchy, but they're related so, as you grapple with the integration of sponsored content, I hope you continue fine-tuning these user issues.

Lastly, I notice that comments are disabled on the R&B post. Is that the plan? If so, there is no conduit between the consumer and the producer. Or is that temporary, while you work out the other kinks?

Like some others have mentioned, I don't have a problem with sponsored posts as long as they are clearly labeled as such. I don't think it is disingenuous and sneaky - in fact, by posting this and leaving it open for comments, you're encouraging honesty and open discourse.

Don't get bogged down by the haters, AT. They'll learn to tune out the ads.

they don't bother me a bit. If I could make a living with my blog I'd be all over that. :-)

Well, since you brought up the analogy of Garrison Keillor reading the sponsorship lines on A Prairie Home Companion, I'd like to point out that he NEVER does it in the same format as the rest of the show -- you'll never hear Guy Noir talk about a brand of cologne he likes. In fact, Keillor makes it a point to incorporate advertisements for FAKE products (Powdermilk Biscuits, the Chatterbox Cafe, etc.) into the context of the program. There is never any confusion over what is a sponsorship deal and what is part of the show.

Putting advertisements into the context of the site in the form of a post (authored by an AT writer, no less!) is very, very sneaky. Don't try to sugarcoat it -- surely R&B is hoping that AT readers who are otherwise good at "tuning out" the more obvious ads on the sidebar and between posts will click on these more subversive ads and read them, thinking that they are endorsements. That's what you want, and that's what the sponsor wants. It's win-win for everyone but the reader, who (presumably) comes to AT because the content is authored by real people with real opinions about ideas and products that might better their lives. A paid advertisement for chairs is not the same thing.

I notice you have disabled the comments on the R&B advertisement. Will you continue to do that with your future post/ads?

While I don't mind the sponsored posts, I would change their placement to avoid that experience I have when I read the NY Times magazine and know something's off--and then see "special advertising section" at the top of the page.
I would place the sponsored posts of the week on the left nav panes. I would present it the same way you do the Top Posts and Top House Tours (just make it Recent Sponsored Posts). Then it's even more clear that it isn't part of the standard content. But again, this site is wonderful, I've become a regular visitor, and I respect that you need to sustain yourselves.

I agree on more delineation. I didn't realize there were sponsored posts - but I tend not to read many of the product/store posts myself. I just did a search to see if I had read any of those posts.
Delineation could be accomplished by subtle change in text font or color. A small icon preceding the post title.
I don't mind these posts because usually the picture is what grabs me to read more.

But I think there was an earlier comment about AT as an enterprise and the concept of growth/expansion and sustainability that might be well worth pondering (as I'm sure you have).

Two more thoughts... I second the complaint about recycled post. Those are annoying, and the recycling could at least be better explained. Maybe actually report old content as a new post [starting comments from scratch], explain the enduring value of the content, and link to the original.

Second, I'm more likely to click on an ad if it relates to why I come to this site. Crystal Light doesn't NOT pertain to me necessarily, but it has nothing to do with why I value AT as a resource.

I don't see a problem with the sponsored posts, either. They're a fact of publishing life. If I'm not interested, I'll skip over it, just like I do over any other post. And it is exactly like the "special advertising sections" that are in glossy magazines. The glossies don't see the need to point out in huge type that THIS IS ADVERTISING. We can figure it out.

"Comments have been disabled."

Not cool AT. It's disingenuous to position yourselves as promoters of forum and transparency while simultaneously stifling viewer responses.


And... ditto to the above criticism of too-fast/unnecessary expansion, increasing # of (often irrelevant) advertisements, recycling content (can't come up with new ideas?), product reviews and polls that sound like ads/market research. Oh yeah, not mentioned but I still hate the sexist images that have been popping up lately.

The ideas that conceived this site (sustainable and stylish living) are great. You seem to be drifting away from them though. And what of your core readership - and the ad revenue they entice?

I love AT, but paid-posts are sleazy. It's payola. It'd be like the nightly news doing pro-Clinton stories for cash.

Above, you say: "Sponsored posts are one of our newest ideas and one that we are doing only very sparingly out of respect for our readers and our advertisers. This is a special type of ad."

But the link to a "sponsored post" says: "Recently, a merchandising manager at Room & Board was looking at the company's desk collection and felt something was missing."

I wonder if that "something" is authenticity? It seems to be missing in the post at the top of this page as well. Maybe you're trying to convince yourself more than us?

On a similar note, I'm noticing that AT is becoming more concerned with clicks than content. That may sound harsh, but consider the amount of clicking we're doing now verses a year or two ago in order to reach the same content.

A small cool post used to show up on the main page of AT with a "more after the jump" link where we'd see pics. Now, even after clicking to the actual post, we're expected to click to a gallery and then click through six more pages, each with ads. I get it. We're giving you seven clicks instead of one. And if we want to look at a photo again, it's more clicks clicks clicks. It's good for advertising but it's annoying to use. "Hot Or Not" posts on ATs main page suddenly have voting moved to after the jump. Previously, the voting was before the jump. More clicks. I suspect that comments will soon be on a separate page so we have to click once to read them and then click to another page to add one. That's two more clicks per reader for AT, but it's annoying. And it's disappointing, but it's nowhere near as disappointing as bogus content presented as authentic.

Sorry Maxwell. I love AT, but lately it's been disappointing.

The sponsored posts don't bother me. I feel like it's obvious to me what they are and I just skip 'em. It's less annoying than all the flashing stuff along the sides of the blog to me.

I do agree with Rob in PDX about the clicking situation though. It's a little out of hand.

Let me begin by saying that I certainly appreciate this site and that it is free to read, and thank you for being up front about the sponsored posts.

I do think it's difficult to offer impartial opinions once you're paid to praise one company who is in competition with one who isn't paying you. Is this why we've been seeing so many Febreze posts? How about the constant Ikea coverage? Not trying to be rude here, just curious. Thanks.

Just think about infotainment, infomercials and embedded reporters in Iraq. Supposedly you are supposed be able to tell the difference between information/entertainment, information/advertisements and news/war propaganda. The fact is you cant and then it ends up tainting the source.

The producers of this kind of product end up being consciously or subconsciously affected. This is happening in professions across the country. Recently many medical schools are reevaluting whether they should allow pharmaceutical companies to give pens, notepads, sponsored meals or any kind of gifts on medical campuses.They even are reviewing how pharmaceutical companies affect CMEs( continuing medical education). WHY? This sort of publicity/advertising directly affects sphysician prescribing practices and even the research questions studied by doctors.

Personally I think this is a slippery slope for AT. There is no way you can guarantee that you wont be swayed and affected by this process. One day you are reviewing all these products from one company and searching for one that you can endorse in your weekly sponsored ad. You are looking through the catalog of items and maybe you find lots of things that you like. Whats to say that all these other products dont make it into the 400 other weekly posts? The fact is AT content CAN and I can argue WILL be affected by these sponsored ads.

It will make me suspect the other content on AT and wonder "Are they getting a kickback ( READ ad dolloars) for this?". As a result I would much rather see more ads than this sponsored ad business.

I don't have a problem with advertising. I love advertising. I work in advertising. But I would have a problem with someone like Katie Couric being paid to sit at a news desk and read a pro McCain ad designed to sound like a news story. At its core, its meant to be misleading. It doesn't matter how many times you splash the word sponsored over the news/ad, the entire format is designed to wrap information in a layer of legitimacy it does not intrincically have. Don't kid yourself, Maxwell. You and your advertisers both know this - they aren't paying you more out of pure generosity. And ask yourself, how well would you trust Couric to report on matters of politics once she had done such an ad? Her reputation as an honest and uncompromised source of political information would be completely discredited - her value as a source of accurate news destroyed.

Maxwell, you have created a community built on an honest exchange of information. This community trusts your perspective on small space living, decorating, and a whole variety of other topics. You have created a thriving information ecosystem. There are always going to be companies and interests that will want to penetrate and manipulate that information exchange to their own benefit. Controlling and mitigating that manipulation is just one of the challenges you are going to face with growing frequency as AT expands. Sponsored editorial ads create the distinct impression that you have completely surrendered the battle against such manipulation for a quick and easy payday. I mean, if they doubled the offer, would you remove the "sponsored" tag? If they tripled it? They now know your editorial purity can be purchased - its just a matter of finding the right price.

There are lots of ways to be creative about advertising. These sponsored editorials are just one (very bad) way of drawing attention to your advertisers and creating a revenue stream. The short term financial benefits may look tempting, but they do more harm than good. Don't fall for it.

Also if you really cared about transparency AT would continue to have ways for readers to rate retailers and do so free from harassment. I have not forgotten AT's wimpy stance vis a vis a retailer who was harassing a reader who complained about their customer service. I hate to be cynical. But this slow creep downward makes me think that AT is more concerned about product placement and revenue than helping readers make their homes healthier and more beautiful spaces.

The reason why I came to AT was to get design advice but also honest reviews about home decor products and retailers from other design savvy consumers. I wonder if the AT that got me so excited in the past wil continue in the future.

What RichardinLA wrote (2008-04-30 18:51:05).

Keep on truckin'.

The commenters who are against ads obviously don't run a website. The quality of the posts, the sheer VOLUME of posts, and the happiness of the darling writers of AT all depend on one thing: MONEY. The whole world depends on it. If you don't, fantastic to you and I don't believe you exist.

How passionate would the writers of the site be if they were all broke? Or how realistic is it to expect them to all be independently wealthy? Get a clue.

That being said, a different color behind the sponsored posts is a great idea. And clicking a half a dozen times to get to the meat of the post is silly. I usually look at AT on my iPhone while I'm in line somewhere and it does bug.

Anyways, love AT and I hope you live long and prosper. Oh no, I didn't just say that.

When this came up before, I defended AT in comments, and I still support sponsored posts. I think the irony here is that a lot of publications, both web and otherwise, don't even print the words "sponsored post/article" at the top (as AT does). They just write glowing content about a product then ads for that product show up in a few pages or at the side of the content. In other words, you're probably going to be judged more harshly for being more honest and upfront about it. If you were sneaky and hid your relationship with the sponsor, almost no one would notice. I used to see this sort of back door sponsor/content distributor relationship all the time in computer magazines. A multi-page review and subsequent "how to" articles for software that was second in the market would run concurrently with full page ads on the back cover of the magazine for that software. Those made me angry because they were pandering to the sponsor and not being upfront about it.

Those who are complaining and saying they don't trust you now are fooling themselves to try to bully you into stopping. The truth is that they're just going to snort in disapproval and keep coming back for more in 98% of cases. I have no respect for people who want your work, but aren't willing to pay anything for it or sacrifice a few seconds of their attention to see the words "sponsored post" and skip it if it offends them.

I'm fine with advertising-- it takes money to run a website.

However, I respectfully disagree with the notion that "if you're going to promote something it's actually better to do it yourself, as long as it's clear that it's an ad." If the posts on this site were purely "tips on moving" or "house tours" without ever mentioning products or services by name, that would be one thing. I see no conflict there. However, many posts on AT promote products-- herein lies the problem. If some of these product promoting posts are done "selflessly"-- ie for the sake of your readership only, and others are done because you're paid to do hawk some wares, you completely lose all credibility.

If you want to do things analogously to Prairie Home Companion, what you would do is have the advertisers write the content, and you post it verbatim-- using the font/style/layout of your normal post, with a "sponsored" label to signify "we didn't write this-- this content came straight from the horse's mouth." That way, there's no conflict of interest; manufacturers still get top billing, and we'll still believe you suggest a lamp, a moving company, or a shower-head.

If you're dead set on the "we're going to write it ourselves" business, I'd at the VERY LEAST want to see a note next to every non-sponsored product "we did not receive compensation from this manufacturer." (Just as restaurant reviews, like WTTW's "Check Please," specify that their reviewers/critics dined in the restaurants anonymously.) I think this is the only you can write your own sponsored posts, still talk about products in non-sponsored posts, and not look like you're hiding something.

No gripes here.

I get lots out of your site for free.

If I'm paying for it somehow by not paying for it, I'm happy for you.

Thanks again,

Art.

Anyway, I also wanted to add that if your sponsored posts were written, as I suggest, by the advertisers themselves, I'd still read them. I imagine the content would be similar-- I'd rather hear it straight from the advertiser, rather than wonder if your other posts are genuine posts or paid product placement posts.

All of you who say "I like ads better because I just skip over them" are making it harder for AT to justify selling ad space.

Sponsored posts are cool. There's nothing wrong with making money, so long as no one dies. And sponsored posts are way more creative than... you know... sticking a random ad RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A POST. Can you not do that anymore, AT? It's kind of obnoxious. The ads between the end of a post and the comments are ok though, it's a natural break so it makes sense.

I appreciate this site and visit several times a day, although I don't often leave comments.

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. While I totally respect your need /desire to make money, sponsored posts make me agree with the person above who mentioned "the slippery slope" you are now on, from accepting ads to being ads.

If you must have sponsored posts, please make them different in some graphic way (not just a tiny notice) and please do not write them yourselves. I respectfully disagree that this makes them "classy." To me, it makes them "sneaky."

Did you guys read what the people against sponsored ads actually posted!?

I clearly said I am against sponsored ads. I am not against a financially sustainable AT (that means an AT that supports itself by advertising revenue).

INSTEAD I would prefer more paid ad space on the blog. Put it anywhere-- allover the space, on the right or left spaces or even before content. But if you start doing sponsored ads I wont be able to trust the content anymore.

ya whatever business is business but i hate those ads in magazines that even use the same font or format as the articles, hate it here too, and its really difficult to tell what's what. the first time i came across a sponsored post i was reallllllllly confused, i thought that it was still a post, something AT was telling me was cool and new and the latest hip design, but wasn't really sure it was an ad because it didnt really say AD at the top or anything. Several times I have found myself reading through the whole post only to realize later it was an 'ad' Maybe use a big red highlighted title that says advertisment (it'd help me :p)

I don't mind the ads if they're clearly marked, however, I would have appreciated a "heads up" post like this one prior to their start. I think that's something to keep in mind for the future. You know your readership--just remember to let them in on ANY change in advance. We're all much more likely to be understanding after reading your personal take on it. Thanks.

ummm... the nightly news has commercials... and we pay for cable. So, nice analogy there.

Anyway, I'm totally fine with the sponsored posts - just no ads that cover up content/mess with anything I'm trying to read. Just call it an "AT Sponsored Post" and anyone who doesn't want to click will know to skip it. I really don't understand why everyone on here thinks they should be delivered this fantastic content without any source of income for you guys. We've all seen Maxwell's apartment - I don't think your motive here is any sort of extravagant monetary gain. if you need to take on some extra ad space to keep your heads above water, I am certainly fine with it... you deserve it, you've worked hard!

If ads or sponsored posts bother you, skip 'em!

AT is a great site, and any great site with a lot of traffic has costs. I would rather see ads (and some of them lead me to some great deals!) than have features cut from the site.

AT is AWESOME. Ads or not.

I didn't come up with the nightly news analogy, but I think it's sound. Yes, the nightly news has commercials. However, the commercials on the nightly news aren't written by the news reporters themselves, nor are commercials designed to resemble news stories, unless they're parodies... hence news programs having commercials doesn't undercut the credibility of their reporting.

AT should, by all means, generate as much income as it can, and I absolutely mean that genuinely. I just hope it doesn't do so at the expense of the credibility of any other posts that suggest or promote products/services.

(Though, come to think of it, I would DEFINITELY be on board with in-house-written sponsored posts that are parodies of normal AT posts!)

I think we are all savvy folks -- given our obvious good taste by finding and frequenting AT -- and we can figure out whether a post is a sponsored writeup or not by paying a little attention. The fact is, folks learn to tune out ads -- in the left column, the right column, during breaks in your TV show -- and so the presentation evolves. Now ads split posts in half, they pop up to delay us from seeing the next page (hello, NYT) and they litter the bottom of our TV screens during programming. It IS a fact of life and it is not going to go away.

I don't fault AT a bit for trying to make a living. You could make the sponsored posts more obvious, but you may bring their advertiser value down by making them so easy to skip. If anything, I'd recommend writing the posts in a way that calls out the difference more. For example, start with Why we think this sponsor is worth sponsoring: or perhaps Number of AT staff who own (as in purchased) products by this sponsor.

The AT posts are half retail recommendations/reviews, anyway. Nothing stops readers from sticking their tongue out at the styles shown in non-sponsored posts!

But I agree with the complaint about recycling. And can you use your R&B pay to upgrade the search engine?!

I'm with Art!
No gripes here... it's great having a website that has a lot of inspiration and resources. (And more akin to my taste than anything else I've yet to find)

From reading through these comments, it seems pretty clear that nearly everyone who feels compelled to off an opinion on the subject is NOT against AT accepting advertising, and I hope that is clear to Maxwell, et al. I want to personally reiterate that I understand this is a business with employees and a payroll and expenses, and that advertising is a fact of internet life when it comes to meeting necessary profit goals. I think it's possible to separate the type of advertising that's already on AT from the sponsored post we saw yesterday.

I love AT. I really, truly do. I let AT readers into my home in a photo tour. I read every single post from every region of the site. I'm here several times a day, every day. I'm hoping that my voice and the voices of other concerned AT readers are heard here, and that precautions are taken going forward with advertising plans. There's are a lot of really good suggestions here -- please don't dismiss them.

I agree that "sponsored posts" are crossing a subtle line. When Garrison Keillor reads ads, I get the sense that he's doing a very gentle parody of them, playing off the incongruity of hearing a banal modern advertising pitch in the folksy Keillor voice. I get the same feeling from the ads Ira Glass occasionally does on This American Life. The sense is "I know this is really cheesy, but we're paying the bills, so bear with us." Because of this element of parody, the advertiser doesn't interfere with the relationship between the voice on the radio and the listener.

With the sponsored posts, this crucial parody element is missing. So instead of an "us" [the voice and the listeners] against "them" [the advertisers], readers get the sense that it's "us" [the listeners] against "them" [the voice AND the advertisers]. So we have to put up our guard again.

Hear hear, moema; you beat me to the point I would have wanted to make if I were wittier, quicker...

But that said, the readers who said they didn't notice underscores the trickiness and underhandedness of the practice.

Sorry, AT; this new marketing trick is just lame.

The sponsored post thing makes me feel icky because, as lots of people have noted, it blurs the line between AT & the advertiser.

Suppose AT does a 'sponsored post' about a retailer, and during the set up they discover something unsavory - a bad environmental record, or awful customer service, or something else? What do they do? And, how do we - the readers - know?

I am pro advertising, although I hate flash ads because they take forever to load - but I really cannot stress enough the separation of editorial content and advertising. AT may tell us that theres a complete separation, but its extraordinarily difficult for the readers to believe that! (as evidenced by these comments, and more so by the censoring of the R&B post comments).

Really think about this long and hard AT - your readers come here for very specific content, stuff that is fresh and clean, and free of the corporate garbage that we're constantly bombarded with. Give us reason to doubt that content and we'll leave you in droves.

I have no problem with sponsored posts, as long as they're identified as such. If you don't want to be tainted by them, don't read 'em. This isn't exactly the nightly news. Design is subjective anyway. I make up my own mind about the posts, sponsored or not. If I don't like something, AT isn't going to persuade me to buy it.

the skepticism and anger over the sponsored posts is really surprising. this is a free site! what a wonderful resource for all of us to be able to log on any time we want and not only peruse content, but comment and converse and get more tips. i'm willing to bet that the sparse AT Shop doesn't get many hits, and brings in even less revenue... i'd rather read/skip over/whatever a sponsored post than pay a membership fee.

and the comments about feeling like even the unsponsored posts sound sponsored... i don't get it. i was attacked for this in a question i had posted to the site. a good chunk of design is about bringing all of the right elements into your space in the first place... so it would make sense that the AT team would post about all manner of tools, shops, furniture, services, etc. that sing the praises of great products. satisfied customers should ALWAYS share their good experiences. unfortunately, that is often skipped while we jump right to the bad.