Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bezos-Owned Washington Post Embeds Amazon Buy-It-Now Buttons Mid-sentence

Posted by Soulskill on from the wait-till-they-start-delivering-papers-with-drones dept.

McGruber writes: While reading a story in the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, I saw that the paper had begun embedding Amazon Buy-It-Now links in the middle of story sentences. For example, in this article, a sentence about the sales figures for differing covers of The Great Gatsby read: At Politics and Prose, the traditional [BUY IT NOW] version — featuring the iconic eyes floating on a blue background — sold better than the DiCaprio [BUY IT NOW] cover. This change follows the July news of much larger than expected losses at Amazon and a 10-percent decline in the Amazon's stock value. In related news, the Post reports that the literary executor of George Orwell's estate has accused Amazon.com of doublespeak after they cited one of Orwell's essays in their ebook pricing debate with Hachette and other publishers.

29 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All advertising eventually repels people. It's only a matter of time before someone seizes the opportunity and takes your customers away. Ads associate you with cheapness. There is no coming back from a reputation as an ad whore.

    On a side note: Be thankful for ad blockers. I hold quite a few sites in undeserved regard because I don't see the ads.

    1. Re:It's not going to work by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ad blockers repel content providers....

    2. Re:It's not going to work by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All advertising eventually repels people.

      Exactly. This is why, throughout history, companies that advertize have consistently failed, while companies that just sit back and wait for the world to beat a path to their door have prospered. Clearly, advertising doesn't work.

      Ads associate you with cheapness

      So true. This is why companies like Louis Vuitton and Gucci, by advertising heavily, devalue their products, and only make pennies on the dollar compared to unadvertised brands available from eBay and shipped from China.

    3. Re:It's not going to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Snark that misses the point.

      He wasn't talking about companies that buy ads, he's talking about companies the sell ads c.f. "ad whore."

    4. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · · Score: 2

      Welfare is only fair if everybody gets it equally, not just the needy, and pays for food, and on top of it you can have a job, and buy like a fancier place than provided by welfare, or fancier food.

    5. Re:It's not going to work by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would cost no more than current systems

      This is factually incorrect. Even assuming single payer medical care is done separately and paid for all the welfare in the US a generous (Obama's)probable discretionary budget generously proportioned (assume 100% of labor, agriculture, housing, veterans benefits, and internal affairs budget go to welfare) gives 320 billion to welfare. Divided by the population of the US that's a little over $1000 per person. Now add mandatory spending (the above link includes this information) and assume 100% of food and social security spending counts as welfare, again divide by the population of the US. That's about $4400 per person. Total: $5400 per person and that assumes not a cent is needed for program administration. Your proposed amount of basic income comes to $450 per person, per month. If you want that to rise to a number people can live on you're going to have to significantly raise taxes or print 33 to 50 percent more money.

      Given the percentage of people who cannot be profitably employed today and given the rate at which technology is increasing that percentage I believe basic income is an absolute necessity. But we need to be realistic at how much it costs and create a realistic plan for implementing it.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    6. Re:It's not going to work by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spammy advertising doesn't work and repels customers. Spam email, annoying product placement, animated/interactive adverts and the like put people off eventually. That's why you don't get "1ouis Vvitt0n" emails, or at least not from Louis Vuitton.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:It's not going to work by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I agree that ads are distracting, and they do decrease my enjoyment of reading, but not so much that I need to block them or refuse to look at material with advertisements.

      "Cheapness" is also something that is a false value. If I have a reason to trust the words on the page of a story with distracting formatting and ads as being a higher class of journalism than something in a pristine, well formatted, advertisement-less site, I will continue to read the sloppy site and glean what I can from it. I will also tolerate the ads to support the site, unless I know of a better way for them to obtain support.

      The reality is that in this current world, we're in the Wild West of content, but in the past, that was the case as well. Copyright and such came about and was effective because you could control a physical medium to some degree, but before that, you'd get ripped off flagrantly. It used to be common for the latest plays and such to end up in unauthorized performances in places like the American West, because no one could enforce that. In those days, you took the money you could get, and relied on patronage for the rest. And to be honest, I think we may need to return to patronage if we want a truly ad-free environment, but patronage has the stink of aristocracy or old money to it, but could be democratized by something like Kickstarters on a wider scale. Just be ready for our understanding of the creative business to change.

      Point being, if the Washington Post simultaneously becomes both low quality and ad ridden, it is doomed. However, that is not necessarily the case if it actually uses that money to maintain a certain level of quality in its reporting and analysis.

    8. Re:It's not going to work by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      There is no coming back from a reputation as an ad whore.

      Unless of course you are actually advertising prostitution...
      NSFW - http://www.sherisranch.com/
      in which case being "an ad whore" is exactly what you were shooting for!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    9. Re:It's not going to work by sillybilly · · Score: 2

      Emusic charges 48 cents a song, and the supply is so immense, that the pressure on that huge, 48 cents downward is tremendous, as I could buy, instead of 24 songs on $12/mo, I don't know, 1000 songs? The sellers eager to get a piece of the pie, any tiny bit of piece, instead of all of nothing for one of them, like in a raffle ticket, are many. Such is the situation with intellectual property where the creativity of the public is let loose by opening the floodgates. Prices go to zero. I mean I see gorgeous free graffiti riding public transport trains, and it's much better, and subtle and creative, on the East Side that's almost fully black, than on the West Side that's more mixed with white, hispanic and black. Asians don't do graffiti, as far as I know, but they get good paying jobs after getting a college degree. So anyway, the intellectual creativity of people is bursting at the seams, even for free, let alone getting paid for it. That's why cents are not fine enough granularity, when you're talking a price of 0.00000023 cents for an item, and that's where bitcoin comes in. Of course in a world where they can lock down creativity better, and erect all kinds of cock blocks - such as creating music on the cloud that you hope to sell on emusic, when in fact somebody else will sell it, under their name, if it's any good, and yours gets listed too, but not presented to buyers much -, so when they take away even that, the ability to create something at all offline and sell it to your buddies in the neighborhood without it going through the network, or authorship being questioned, then they can reinstate previous intellectual property prices. Mind control, flow of information control, has always been the biggest game in town. And the powers that be may not find bitcoins tasty after all, compared to blocking everyone off from access to sell intellectual property, such as organic chemistry book authors from india selling ebooks in the US, or music artists from Brazil selling mp3's in the US, etc, etc. It's a different world these days, everybody stressed to the breaking point over that extra cent.

  2. What took them so long? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So apparently Washington Post has joined the Amazon Affiliates program.... that's so 1990s of them!

  3. Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not having a serious problem with this.

    I hate today's commercials so much, I mute them if I can't fast forward them, and am almost forced to only watch DVR'ed content, and tend to avoid watching live TV now. I run adblock. When its a site I go to frequently, I whitelist it, and quickly block it again once I see an ad that does popups, or automatically plays audio/video, or otherwise detracts from my reading.

    I would go nuts if a "buy it now" button popped up while reading fiction, but this is a newspaper article. I don't find the button intrusive, because I'm not trying to follow artistic nuance in a newspaper article. It doesn't really take up the screen, and they're placed in front of products to sell, namely "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "The Great Gatsby".

    It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    1. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?

      IMO, the apparent conflict of interest. In an ideal free market, ad placements are competitive. Exclusive deals between entities which enjoy very large market-shares in their respective markets have a high probability of inhibiting GDP growth in the long run, according to both empirical and theoretical economics.

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    2. Re:Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      I would go nuts if a "buy it now" button popped up while reading fiction, but this is a newspaper article.

      When newspaper articles are written so as to be conducive to advertizing, they are fiction of the worst sort.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  4. Wow, seriously - that is annoying by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There were a LOT of those "buy it now" links scattered all through the article!

    If I were a Washington Post subscriber, I might very well cancel my subscription over something like that - it completely breaks up the flow of the article. That's highly annoying.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there's also something called "journalistic integrity" in which advertising content is separate from news content. The next step is for WaPo to shape its news coverage to maximize its affiliate volume. also change its name to huffpo.

    2. Re:Wow, seriously - that is annoying by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 2

      The content-sales line has been blurred beyond repair. In-text ads like this has been a dream of the ad buyers since day one of the web, and they're starting to become acceptable. It's now inappropriate to talk about a title in Amazon's collection without a hyperlink to that page, and Amazon will gladly pay on a sale of that item from a customer that comes that way.

  5. I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash Post by Nate+the+greatest · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did anyone else notice that the affiliate tag on the links suggest that the links belong to Slate magazine and not the newspaper? For the record, Bezos didn't buy Slate last year, and I don't think he owns it now. http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon... Given the unanswered questions, I'm going to assume there's more to this story. I think this could be a syndicated article which arrived with the links. Or perhaps something broke in the WP's servers, I don't know. But I do know that I checked a half dozen other articles and didn't see any affiliate links.

  6. Re:Amazon Prime by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't matter if the Washington Post is personally owned or not - Bezos' personal fortune is dependent on both it and on Amazon.com, and he's the one calling the shots with both companies. So this attempt to use one of his companies to drive business to another of his companies shouldn't be surprising.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  7. Exchanges by tepples · · Score: 2

    Pay per page with BTC? Good luck browsing the web when you have to keep finding ways to turn dollars into bitcoins when exchange after exchange shuts down. Where is MTGOX now? And good luck getting web sites to agree on standard ways of integrating with mobile wallets.

  8. Re:They already do this... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

    the stock thing provides additional information about a stock. this is an inline ad. the difference is like day and butts.

  9. Re:I'm not sure these buttons belong to the Wash P by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 2

    Slate is the national online magazine that the Post bought from Microsoft about a decade ago. So, it's a co-owned property. Seems like they programed the Post's website whenever a title is mentioned, link to the appropriate Amazon page.

  10. less intrusive by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad

    i have my problems with Amazon, but I'm glad this is happening

    it's a way for owners of newspapers to make their online portion profitable without affecting editorial funciton

    see, print has never been "dead"...it's always been a failure of the business model of the owners of the paper...usually based on a complete misunderstanding of **how to make money from the internet**

    status quo in tech says, "scape personal data from users to deliver custom ads & charge more for those ads"

    Amazon's method here is nothing new or 'innovative' but it's **application** here is innovative in the sense that it can systemically provide a solution to a bad business model

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  11. Re:They already do this... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

    no. it doesn't go to a location where you can buy or sell stocks, and companies don't pay for placement in articles, and it adds value to the article. buy it now links do not add value.

  12. The Paper that brought down a President by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    The Washington Post, historically one of the most respected daily news sources, was hemorrhaging money while attempting to follow demand and make the transition from dead tree news juggernaut to an internet news site.

    Major influence peddlers of the past, major newspaper owners were often more interested in the power derived from an ability to shape public opinion than the bottom line...although they were a great deal more profitable before instantaneous news became impossible to compete with.

    Bezos is dealing with the challenge of ushering the decaying giant into the new World, and in some fashion, that includes monetizing the operation. A button for Amazon purchases? Were you expecting a Rakuten link?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  13. Lost chance by gmuslera · · Score: 2

    The literary executor of George Orwell's estate could had accused Amazon of using Newspeak. But maybe would be Doublespeak the right language for the dystopian present of 2014.

  14. Why the fuss? by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just add 'washingtonpost.com##.buyitnow' to your adblocker and never see it again.

    I don't care who does it for what reason, if it's the owner, his son or his dog, I just block it as soon as I see it.

  15. Re:So what's the problem here? by grcumb · · Score: 2

    Nobody is forcing you to read the Washington Post. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything from Amazon. You can easily avoid both of them, if you want, without any harm or negative effects to yourself. So what's the big deal here?

    Just because neither of us hangs out with him doesn't mean I don't get to tell you what a giant douchebag Jeff Bezos is. That's one of the joys of the First Amendment, my friend! Freedom of speech is the freedom to bitch inanely about things that don't directly affect you.

    You, of course, are equally free to tell me to shut the fuck up, or to take your own advice and not bitch about something that doesn't interest or affect you....

    ... But if you do decide to keep talking about the problem, and maybe even about how to address or resolve it, then you see the true glory of Open Public Dialogue - the very thing that makes Slashdot such a lovely place to be. :-)

    And no, I am not being in the least bit sarcastic, Sheldon.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  16. Bezos asks for more U.S. government corruption? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was wondering why the Washington Post was spamming me! How did the Washington Post get my email address? Now I know. Jeff Bezos is allowing his "personal purchase" to have the email address I gave to Amazon.

    Bezos apparently bought the Washington Post so that he can use it to try to force legislators to give him attention. The U.S. is becoming even more a rich-get-richer country.

    The subjects of the spam messages:

    {SPECIAL PREVIEW} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

    {24 HOURS ONLY} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

    {EXTENDED} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

    I think it is a very effective advertising campaign. The effect will be that people will try to avoid buying things from Amazon. Also, after the "Summer Sale", digital access to the Washington Post will cost $100 per year!