Ok, who is optimizing for

world war 3?

[Rugles]

<Not going to get political>

But during times of crises (like today), do you ever feel any guilt when you capitalize on bad news events?

Just wondering, because I do not feel guilty at all.

Any anecdotes?

<without getting political please>

[JudgeJeffries]

I optimised for a serious event last year and was pilloried in the national newspapers for attempting to profit from suffering notwithstanding that I was offering exactly the same service as everyone else in the business. It appears that I was castigated merely because my pages got to the top of the serps faster than anyone elses. I was appalled by the inaccurate reporting, the lies and the vitriolic abusive language that was used. I felt no guilt at all.

[internetheaven]

Ok, who is optimizing for
world war 3?

Previous to this thread I only optimized for commercial things like Big Brother 22, AOL version 12 etc.

But now I think I'll do a bit of work on the invasion of Iran/Afganistan/France etc. and the assasination of George Bush. Guilt? Why because we're making money that news channels think is solely theirs?

[JudgeJeffries]

Guilt? Why because we're making money that news channels think is solely theirs?

Spot on.
If my scenario happens again I'll not be cowed by adverse publicity as I was last year....article in the Times and pure vitriol in the tabloids etc.
If the punters dont like what they find on my website why are they searching for it?

[edited by: JudgeJeffries at 10:48 am (utc) on July 14, 2006]

[Rugles]

Exactly, there are lots of industries that make money from other peoples misery.

Like Jim Cramer (US stock market personality and founder of thestreet.com) says, if you feel guilty about the way you make some money, donate it to charity.

[Alex_Miles]

It is amazing the lack of any journalistic standard.

I was in a band that became quite famous. The lead singer is never out of the tabloids these days for all kinds of misbehaviour. I am amazed that every word he utters is treated as gospel truth. They lap up every word, even after he punched a few of them. He is a libel case waiting to happen. As soon as one paper prints a load of his lies, all the others repeat it.

This kind of scandal-mongering can be used to advantage when you want to initiate a change of policy in a company or government that otherwise won't listen. They listen fast enough when half a dozen tabloids are ringing for quotes.

You just wait for the company to screw up, then wait for a slow news day and either put a human interest spin on a random email about it to an editor - or wait for a topical story about it and send your info in a follow-up to the journalist concerned.

The art is in the human interest/original spin. Journos have to churn this stuff out day after day. They are grateful if you do the work for them.

[iamlost]

I never feel bad about leveraging 'bad news' into links, eyeballs, clicks, conversions, etc.

The trick has always been to sugar coat the crass commercial offering, eg. when some gross abuse or catastrophe is reported I am more than happy to include a paragraph about volunteering with an appropriate non-profit and/or include a prominent link button to their donation page - just like so many did after the SE Asia tsunnami and hurricane Katrina.

It has become a 'feature' section for several niche sites transforming the time limited jump associated with individual major disasters into seemingly perpetual ROI boost.

Nothing new about disaster selling - news programs are built on the premise.

[Rugles]

>>Nothing new about disaster selling

Not to mention the insurance industry.

[tbear]

Those same news media commenting on your commercialism are earning by doing so, so I don't see any moral obligations there.
I do see an obligation to be as neutral(generous) as possible in my comments and reporting, even if it is just 'my view'.
If I earn by informing I feel just a little more satisfied.