binary solo said:
You're being terribly naive. When advertisers can dictate content to the "media" based on threats from a small number of people that is the end of journalistic independance. It is in fact corrupt for an orchestrated campaign to engage in pressuring advertisers because there is content they don't like. Advertisers should only base their decisions on website traffic, not opinion or editorial content. This is a serious ethical issue whenever there are special interest publications that suppliers of the special interest group advertise with. Obviously its a far more serious ethical issue in the likes of medical journals that partly fund themselves through big pharma advertising. But its a similar issue with gaming websites and computer tech makers. If intel can point to a significant and sustained decrease in website traffic then there is a good commercial basis to pull advertising, because return on investment is low. But if they pull advertising because a few people write saying they don't like the content then it's undue influence on journalistic content. |
Well, welcome to reality. Advertisers in all fields and industries will remove their ads for whatever they deem necessary, even for long partnerships and guaranteed business. A small website like Gamasutra doesn't have the pull to run hit pieces on their advertisers demographics without facing any consequences.
Gamasutra was already taking a major dip in traffic due to the article.
What you're failing to realize is that people who are pissed off at Leigh's article and on going controversies are larger than the small group you think it is. Keep in mind that Intel pulling their ads is what's ironically led to increased traffic.