tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post6268910269910233867..comments2023-08-19T06:19:28.990-04:00Comments on the nytpicker: Did The Gap Get A Positive Stuart Elliott Column In Return For A $200,000-Plus Ad Buy Today? Looks That Way.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-83032571373048037932009-08-30T11:03:02.084-04:002009-08-30T11:03:02.084-04:00I realize I'm late to the party here, but Pick...I realize I'm late to the party here, but Picker, could you fix the hed on this item please. The amount seems either to be missing a zero or has a misplaced comma within it. Is it $200,000? Or is it $20,000?<br />Thanks for all you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-88372386455387089112009-08-16T20:39:40.539-04:002009-08-16T20:39:40.539-04:00I have to say that I noticed the cozy juxtapositio...I have to say that I noticed the cozy juxtaposition of the ads and the Elliott article. I am a business journalist, and I've written my fair share of ad campaign stories, and I have to say that Elliott's was sub-par. The quotes from the folks that worked on the ad campaign were so fluffy they nearly flew off the page. The story of Gap's efforts to re-energize its business is interesting -- it should have run several weeks before the the campaign started. Duh.CDavisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-89953555853682223692009-08-15T09:56:07.208-04:002009-08-15T09:56:07.208-04:00>>Methinks the various anonymous commenters ...>>Methinks the various anonymous commenters protest too much. <br /><br />Methinks you need to re-read the headline.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-50850894344590747162009-08-14T16:05:32.655-04:002009-08-14T16:05:32.655-04:00Response to "Anonymous" from the "s...Response to "Anonymous" from the "spineless you-know-what" -- or, put another way, to "Pot" from "Kettle":<br /><br />You really think a cheapo website like this should be held to "an even higher level of scrutiny" than the New York Times? WTF? Makes no sense, buddy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-50097948897724080882009-08-14T15:34:08.343-04:002009-08-14T15:34:08.343-04:00O Latest Anonymous, you sound ridiculous.
"...O Latest Anonymous, you sound ridiculous. <br /><br />"We who comment should be applauding the effort, not looking for ways to nitpick the NYTPicker to death."<br /><br />So we should let NYTPicker get away with the stuff it won't let NYT get away with? <br /><br />You're a spineless you-know-what. NYTPicker should be held to an even higher level of scrutiny.<br /><br />Say what you want about the news merits of Elliott's columns, it's not right to suggest he's in with the advertisers. I suspect he's not even told where they're advertising unless he makes it a point to ask. <br /><br />Is it a surprise that a New York retailer would advertise in the NYT? Does it have any bearing on the column? No to both. Is it surprising a New York retailer has a Facebook app? A little, actually. I'd rather know more about that than whether or not the campaign being covered each day in the NYT's ad column is appearing itself in the NYT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-40435799757449578022009-08-14T13:31:28.157-04:002009-08-14T13:31:28.157-04:00Methinks the various anonymous commenters protest ...Methinks the various anonymous commenters protest too much. NYTPicker isn't saying Elliott wrote a puff piece in return for advertising. They're saying that Elliott should have acknowledged the fact rthat the Times plays a big role in the new campaign, and mentioned the ads. It's called doing your job, and that's something Elliott isn't very big on. <br /><br />I've noticed that unlike a lot of other media websites, NYTPicker is very careful not to make sweeping accusations. These guys seem to traffic in demonstrable facts. We who comment should be applauding the effort, not looking for ways to nitpick the NYTPicker to death.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-34428519049899395792009-08-14T07:19:22.141-04:002009-08-14T07:19:22.141-04:00Pogue be critical? Rarely.Pogue be critical? Rarely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-44650550380948837122009-08-14T07:12:13.094-04:002009-08-14T07:12:13.094-04:00You were doing so well, here you go again raising ...You were doing so well, here you go again raising another red herring ethics issue. I'm still waiting for my retraction on Pogue... you were dead wrong there, and you're dead wrong here too.<br /><br />Look. <br /><br />In other to have a conflict of interest, you have to have an interest (beyond a journalistic one). <br /><br />Are you suggesting there was a kickback of some kind? Are you suggesting there was coordination between ad sales and those involved in the news pages? <br /><br />I mean, what exactly are you suggesting?<br /><br />Because the launching of a major corporate ad campaign and coverage of said campaign by those paid to cover such things is hardly surprising, or unusual.<br /><br />Are you saying the times should have boycotted coverage? Are you saying only negative coverage would have been acceptable?<br /><br />What are you saying anyway?<br /><br />Funny you mention Pogue in this context, given your (erroneous) criticism of him in the recent past. You're right: He isn't commenting on the promotion of a product, because that's not what he's paid to do.<br /><br />But when your beat is advertising.... I mean, Duh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-29134898881619283902009-08-13T17:32:20.572-04:002009-08-13T17:32:20.572-04:00He that vexes by dull custom shall
of leveraged d...He that vexes by dull custom shall <br />of leveraged decorum the festive corps adorn.illuminati parchmenthttp://swjeans.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-26028729802557939402009-08-13T16:00:15.813-04:002009-08-13T16:00:15.813-04:00NYTpicker, I think you're a little naive. Yes,...NYTpicker, I think you're a little naive. Yes, I agree the columns were little more than the "hey, it's a new ad campaign" variety which, of course, is no surprise. Advertisers, simply put, advertise. Not eyebrow raising. Elliott could have drilled deeper to tell us why these campaigns were significant to the industry or consumers or even to a business audience. But your insinutation that Elliott would be aware of the marketers' use of NYT for the ads and would go out of his way to promote them is out of line.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-82074823557530832472009-08-13T13:38:39.440-04:002009-08-13T13:38:39.440-04:00It's not much different from the so-called cov...It's not much different from the so-called coverage in sections like Travel or Real Estate. How many truly analytical or critical articles do we read in any of those?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-6962094304956186502009-08-13T12:23:39.299-04:002009-08-13T12:23:39.299-04:00Elliott usually fails to notice anything that isn&...Elliott usually fails to notice anything that isn't in the press release.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-63551278734443549102009-08-13T10:49:29.008-04:002009-08-13T10:49:29.008-04:00And how could Elliott fail to note the font/design...And how could Elliott fail to note the font/design copying of American Apparel?!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com