bit-tech.net

The Path of Progress: Tracking the evolution of AMD’s graphics cards

Comments 26 to 50 of 118

Reply
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 12:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrightCandle
You target audience likes the details. Architecture, performance analysis, the edges of new features. All of this could have made a great article showing how the gpu has changed over the generations in performance for example. For a sponsored article like this to do anything but create anger it needs to be a genuine look at AMDs progress, this is just a big press release. The fact that you don't see how it isn't relevant is shocking.

Now your integrity hit rock bottom what do you expect the response to be exactly?

Again, feedback appreciated. We'll certainly revisit the topic for a longer piece in the future.

For now, this is a sponsored article, supporting a campaign. I've not dismissed anyone's feedback as irrelevant, I don't think, I just don't necessarily tally together a labelled sponsored feature with the integrity of reviews.

It's also not replaced any content we would have run either, just on a separate point. It's an additional piece on a day when we've also got a review and board game feature blog.

As for what I expect the response to be: that's not really for me to say. If people think we've sold out by running a sponsored piece, and that it's tampered the independence of our reviews, then I disagree with that vehemently. I've seen what level of work goes into the content we produce.

I do appreciate we're all entitled to differing opinions, though.

Simon
Christopher N. Lew 6th September 2012, 12:56 Quote
I was hoping for something more about the engineering side, and less from marketing. There must be space in the market for something like "The Soul of a New Machine".
Baz 6th September 2012, 13:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrightCandle
You target audience likes the details. Architecture, performance analysis, the edges of new features. All of this could have made a great article showing how the gpu has changed over the generations in performance for example. For a sponsored article like this to do anything but create anger it needs to be a genuine look at AMDs progress, this is just a big press release. The fact that you don't see how it isn't relevant is shocking.

Now your integrity hit rock bottom what do you expect the response to be exactly?

Rock bottom? Cool, can I now start taking bribes for our review scores and positive coverage? I could do with a few extra quid to do the house up.

How about we start giving awards to EVERYTHING too? After all, it's all OK if you look at it the right way, and awards=ads! Heck, we could give awards to press-releases and event coverage too! "I had a nice time, and they had nice food and beer, 9/10, would recommend."

or, we could just disable comments on our reviews completely! Then there'd be no where for people to call us up and complain about our content.

or, we could start breaking every NDA out there! Yeah! burn all our relationships with the industry and just review gear from random OEMs. Just think of the massive traffic spikes we'd get for unveling the GTX 700 Turbo nutter edition!

Seriosuly though, while I agree the article is not great, please have some perspective. One sponsored piece of content does not mean we've sold out or compromised our editorial position, it means we're exploring new ways to make cash so we can remain awesome.

The day anyone tells me to change one of my scores, or the content of my reviews, or be really nice to a just company because they're giving us cash, is the day I quit my job and go apply to be Fatal1ty's whipping boy.
brumgrunt 6th September 2012, 13:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz


The day anyone tells me to change one of my scores, or the content of my reviews, or be really nice to a just company because they're giving us cash, is the day I quit my job and go apply to be Fatal1ty's whipping boy.

I'd be out the door, too.

Although, to be clear, I would not be applying for that Fatal1ty job that Harry seems quite keen on...
liratheal 6th September 2012, 13:19 Quote
Genuinely don't see what everyone's whining about.

Even without the note saying it's a sponsored article, it should be pretty bloody obvious that it is - And even more so, who by.

It's advertising, yes, but it's relevant advertising that isn't just trying to sell **** with flashy colours (The most abhorrent type of advertising). More over, on these forums many people admit to using adblock to "improve" their viewing experience - To ensure that the campaigns (That are paid for) reach us, the target audience, what choice do the staff have other than to post it as an article?

Sure, a ball was dropped not flagging it when it was first posted, but that was apologised for.

Basically, grow up. BT hasn't lost integrity, it's just targeting advertising through different channels.
Ciber 6th September 2012, 13:23 Quote
I was expecting some interesting history from the 3dfx + voodoo days. Though ATIs early cards they might not be that proud of. This however is not so interesting and basically TL:DR
mute1 6th September 2012, 13:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by brumgrunt
Although, to be clear, I would not be applying for that Fatal1ty job that Harry seems quite keen on...

Glad you clarified that! :)

I share some of the conerns of my fellow readers but I'm sure you guys will get on top of things.
The article should have been more technical, more clearly labelled as sponsored and written in a better style, in my humble opinion.

It's not hard to find people with a soft spot for AMD from the old days, and for giving us a competitive GPU market, and I could imagine a bit of 'allow me to play the fanboy'-type article/editorial would actually have been a good read!
Perhaps something with some personal anecdotes too if possible. Make it a bit more engaging.

Just some thoughts... :)
Spreadie 6th September 2012, 13:52 Quote
Reminds me of those "AOL Jobs" pieces often found scattered throughout the articles section.

I didn't read them, but I'm not going to get all hot and bothered about them. Same goes with this one - the only mistake I see is the initial omission of the sponsored tag at the top.

It's still a lot less intrusive than full screen pop-up ads and that horrific IE banner than hijacked your mouse clicks for a few seconds.

If this a compromise designed to generate revenue for the site, at the expense of more intrusive ads, I say bring it on. I can live with it.
Bungletron 6th September 2012, 14:02 Quote
Quote:
Published on 6th September 2012 by bit-tech Staff

No one wanted to put their name to this fine piece of objective journalism? Fair enough, I would not want to either!

Times are hard, needs must, make hay, etc. but I seriously doubt it should be labelled as a feature here, I would have no issue reading it if it was more clearly labelled as a sponsored feature.
John_T 6th September 2012, 14:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Genuinely don't see what everyone's whining about.

Me neither.

A (minor) mistake was made, apologised for, then rectified. End of story.

The thing that offends me is not that bit-tech runs a few ads, has the odd sponsored article or, shock horror, one such article is briefly and accidentally not labelled as such, but the frankly ludicrous overreaction to it all.

There's an old saying about "wanting to have your cake and eat it". Well, since the advent of the internet I think the expectation from some people now is: have their cake, and eat it, and get it for free, and be told how wonderful they are for deigning to taste it in the first place.

It's just silly. Quality journalism is a full-time job, people who do it full time need to be paid. Offices also need to be paid for, as do rates, utilities, equipment, etc, etc. If people aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription, as most aren't, then they have to learn to accept sponsorships and adverts. That, or lose all guarantees of quality and reliability.
Shirty 6th September 2012, 14:30 Quote
Overreaction?

QFT ;)
abezors 6th September 2012, 14:31 Quote
I thought the first page was actually fairly good in terms of content and style. But then the second page seemed to have too many marketing statements one after another in a style that seems unwelcome after normal BT articles (probably prompting the harsher criticisms). I thought the concept was good overall; I would also agree that it could be longer and more detailed next time, with focus on the technologies they have introduced and less of the canned PR.

I took onboard the "sponsored article" tag at the beginning and it prepared me for what was coming without a sense of outrage. If the future of BT requires a few sponsored articles every now and then, well go ahead - provided they *begin* with an explicit sponsor alert. If they're interesting pieces then it's a bonus, either way it's extra money for you guys to run content!
Bungletron 6th September 2012, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
That, or lose all guarantees of quality and reliability.

Perceived loss of objectivity will do that pretty quick too.

Labeling it as sponsored is good, but it should also go in a sub menu of sponsored articles, I would still read it just like I read the sponsored articles in the physical magazine. In the physical magazine if you led with this story on the front cover just like on the front page here you would feel it is somewhat sleazy too no?
Spreadie 6th September 2012, 14:57 Quote
The difference is that you are paying for the mag, the site is free.

As I previously said, the only mistake (now corrected) was not labelling it as sponsored from the offset.
stanonwheels 6th September 2012, 14:58 Quote
Reads like a Gillette advert. Bad call.
Aterius Gmork 6th September 2012, 15:00 Quote
This article is a new low for bit-tech. Time to search for somewhere new. :(

Edit: To clarify: There has been a section for sponsored articles in the past: The Industry News section. Why not use it and its clear headline for articles like this one?
Madness_3d 6th September 2012, 15:17 Quote
Eugh, even skim reading that left a bad taste in my mouth, not what I expect from Bit-Tech at all :-/
xaser04 6th September 2012, 15:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogknees
Where are the details? You know, the block diagrams showing how they've changed over the generations. How the cores are grouped. How data moves around the chip. How the caching strategy has developed. .......

This article should be at least 5 times as long.

I agree with this. I read this "article" before any notes were added in about it being a sponsored piece and thought; "WTF is this crap?".

I am glad to hear that this was not written by BT themselves but I do have to question why this exact sort of article wasn't written by Bit? It would actually make for very interesting reading done properly.
Shirty 6th September 2012, 16:00 Quote
Guys, this is an AMD advert. Not a feature. It is purely designed to trumpet how awesome AMD are, always have been and always will be. It is not designed to convey the views of the Bit-tech editorial staff.

Treat is as such, and all will be well.
B1GBUD 6th September 2012, 17:40 Quote
This article has just reminded me of the clusterf*ck that was early crossfire, my old x1900xt master card is still propping my lounge door open. AMD should have left ATI alone and concentrated on their CPU's as Intel have kept the performance crown ever since Conroe.
Aracos 6th September 2012, 17:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by brumgrunt
Updated now. Apologies for the confusion.

We are looking to do more features charting the path of progress of companies and their technologies in the future. All comments, as always, taken on board.

If you want to do that then do it as yourselves, don't create sponsored articles that do nothing but vomit PR at the reader. These articles are pointless as they don't chart anything other than what the company is questions wants the reader to know.
GrahamC 6th September 2012, 18:19 Quote
Owwer what if AMD sponsor a piece extolling the virtues of Bulldozer. That really would make me chuck.
fdbh96 6th September 2012, 18:44 Quote
"This article is sponsored by AMD."

That wasnt sponsored by AMD that was written by them. Sure I understand that you need to make money, but could there be stuff in the article actually worth knowing. Im sure there are some great technologies in AMD products, but could we not learn about them, rather than just being told theyre amazing.

Articles like this do have potential, but not just blatantly using superlatives in every sentence.
Sloth 6th September 2012, 18:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by brumgrunt
We're going to be doing a series of features of this ilk in the months ahead if all goes to plan.
You should have started with Nvidia. Would have saved a PR nightmare since most people would have lapped it right up. ;)
Shirty 6th September 2012, 18:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
"This article is sponsored by AMD."

That wasnt sponsored by AMD that was written by them. Sure I understand that you need to make money, but could there be stuff in the article actually worth knowing. Im sure there are some great technologies in AMD products, but could we not learn about them, rather than just being told theyre amazing.

Articles like this do have potential, but not just blatantly using superlatives in every sentence.

I disagree, blurring tbe line between advertising and editorial would be impossible from either side. AMD wouldn't accept any negativity, and Bit wouldn't feel comfortable extolling the virtues of products that they don't necessarily rate.

How many of the naysayers in this comments section read Custom PC, or indeed any other tech magazines? These have had sponsored advertising articles in them for years. Would you really expect the format to be any different on here? :?

I just can't see the problem now that the article is clearly marked as an advert.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums