- Posts: 1460
- Thank you received: 1206
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
Rodney Smith discussing Paid/Unpaid reviews
rafcordero wrote:
However, to me the difference is that while you can probably ensure *that* they write about you, you can't control *how* the story is told. And maybe that could be way for getting a bit of cash for producing content.
I don't know the details, so this may be off in small or large ways, but this is a bit how Geek & Sundry works. Companies can talk with the business/marketing department to purchase bundles of content. If any of that work is written content the editor assigns articles to the writers, however the content of that written work is not dictated by the marketing agreements. I wrote a number of articles to satisfy those requirements and never felt like I was doing anything dirty. My editor was clear with the requirement, and I'd use the opportunity to write about painting minis or something that wasn't editorialized content. G&S used a boilerplate disclaimer any time we wrote about that company within the marketing agreement.
G&S pays well below the market normal for freelance work. I have no idea how any outlet, in this industry or not, could pay employees without accepting funding from a person or company that could potentially create a conflict of interest if it wasn't managed correctly.
Case in point: BGG runs plenty of ads but still does a yearly fund raiser.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
WadeMonnig wrote:
rafcordero wrote:
However, to me the difference is that while you can probably ensure *that* they write about you, you can't control *how* the story is told. And maybe that could be way for getting a bit of cash for producing content.
I don't know the details, so this may be off in small or large ways, but this is a bit how Geek & Sundry works. Companies can talk with the business/marketing department to purchase bundles of content. If any of that work is written content the editor assigns articles to the writers, however the content of that written work is not dictated by the marketing agreements. I wrote a number of articles to satisfy those requirements and never felt like I was doing anything dirty. My editor was clear with the requirement, and I'd use the opportunity to write about painting minis or something that wasn't editorialized content. G&S used a boilerplate disclaimer any time we wrote about that company within the marketing agreement.
G&S pays well below the market normal for freelance work. I have no idea how any outlet, in this industry or not, could pay employees without accepting funding from a person or company that could potentially create a conflict of interest if it wasn't managed correctly.
Case in point: BGG runs plenty of ads but still does a yearly fund raiser.
That boggles my mind.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
I also think you could make a very clear disclaimer describing the process. The only problem would be if a game just doesn't fit the players taste or if it has obvious problems. But vetting could solve the first issue, and the opportunity to request not having an opinion printed in very dire circumstances could be an offer you'd make and them the publisher would simply have paid for a playtest and much needed feedback.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
RobertB wrote:
WadeMonnig wrote:
rafcordero wrote:
However, to me the difference is that while you can probably ensure *that* they write about you, you can't control *how* the story is told. And maybe that could be way for getting a bit of cash for producing content.
I don't know the details, so this may be off in small or large ways, but this is a bit how Geek & Sundry works. Companies can talk with the business/marketing department to purchase bundles of content. If any of that work is written content the editor assigns articles to the writers, however the content of that written work is not dictated by the marketing agreements. I wrote a number of articles to satisfy those requirements and never felt like I was doing anything dirty. My editor was clear with the requirement, and I'd use the opportunity to write about painting minis or something that wasn't editorialized content. G&S used a boilerplate disclaimer any time we wrote about that company within the marketing agreement.
G&S pays well below the market normal for freelance work. I have no idea how any outlet, in this industry or not, could pay employees without accepting funding from a person or company that could potentially create a conflict of interest if it wasn't managed correctly.
Case in point: BGG runs plenty of ads but still does a yearly fund raiser.
That boggles my mind.
People are willing to throw free money at them, why not keep taking it?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
G&S pays well below the market normal for freelance work. I have no idea how any outlet, in this industry or not, could pay employees without accepting funding from a person or company that could potentially create a conflict of interest if it wasn't managed correctly.
And then you have outlets who are willing to do it without the correct management. It's really tough.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Msample wrote: People are willing to throw free money at them, why not keep taking it?
I run comprehensive ad/script blocks on BGG because their ads shatter the site's already iffy usability. As such I chuck a couple bucks at 'em each year. Bad as it can be, it's a vital resource.
I have TWBG whitelisted, of course.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.