Press Reset: The Story of Polygon - financed by Microsoft for $750,000
- Thread starter Grecco
- Start date
- Status
Bobby Roberts
Banned
this has been addressed a couple times, but a documentary about the site, starring members of the site, running ON that site, is vastly different than a sponsored article that runs as advertising in a newspaper/circular, or a contest with promotional consideration paid for by a company.
Again - this is a documentary that was concieved by, produced by, and paid for by Microsoft. It wasn't Polygon's idea. They didn't tell their sales department to seek out sponsors for a documentary series about their site. None of this is internally generated subject matter. Sales is there to support Editorial as a means of paying for the news to be written. The quality of the news being written raises the profile so that Sales has the opportunity to make more money, thus making things easier for Editorial. That's supposed to be the relationship.
Sales being the genesis of not just a single story idea, but the highest profile story to come out of the site is NOT how that relationship is supposed to work, and is nowhere near comparable to the weekend edition of Parade magazine running a single page ad that looks like an objective article on boner pills.
Again - it's not that Microsoft is sponsoring the site. It's that Microsoft thought up and paid for the documentary ABOUT the site, which is currently the only thing of note the site has done, since it hasn't even launched.
whalleywhat
Member
Uh, if my local paper had a partnership with a business, I wouldn't trust their coverage of that business at all.
I think the idea that the questionable propriety of some of Polygon's actions isn't unique to them is fair. Heaping particular criticism on Polygon for common practices is hypocritical. But that doesn't exonerate everyone else.
That's a fair enough point and I'm not sure I really absorbed the fact that it was conceived by Microsoft.
Although at this stage I wonder if the editorial department's eeling towards Microsoft might go the other way, what with the reaction to the series and their personas ...or if the recognition they're doing God's work has gone to their heads
. (Note: this last part of my post is an off the cuff musing, not some sort of bold point I'm trying to make, just in case anyone would possibly view it as such)Anton Sugar
Member
Anyone who thinks The Verge is influenced by MS's sponsorship clearly hasn't read any of their Windows Phone coverage.
dannyodwyer
Neo Member
The vast majority of games websites ad-sales come from publishers or hardware manufacturers. I can't see how MS's deal with Polygon is better or worse. The key is how the business operates to project the editorial team from any issues that may arise between ad-sales and their clients. This is an important balancing act. Though in my experience it's the small-to-medium sized sites that struggle with the dilemma of pissing off the folks who pay for ad space - not the large ones. Though every business is different. I'm speaking generally.
Search the thread for ShockingAlberto's post on that subject.
I looked at all of ShockingAlberto's posts in this thread. It took a while to find (sorry, English is a secondary language) but I think you are talking about this post?
I think it makes good points but almost the exact same thing can be said of any site that gets any money (or free items or travel or even free review copies of games) from a company that has anything to do with video games.
But I do not see the same level of hate towards any other site for these reasons. I understand if people do not like Polygon for the many other reasons - like if people do not like the personalities or hate the content of this documentary - but I do not understand why everyone else gets a "free pass" for doing the same thing (taking money from the companies they're covering).
I actually think others are worst. Microsoft is Microsoft. But Internet Explorer and Xbox are not really that connected. I do not think advertising Internet Explorer is on the same level of "shady" as directly using developers to try to sell a subscription to your website. I do not even think it is as "shady" as advertising a video game that you will be reviewing.
I do not know. Maybe I am missing something obvious?
Note: I know I sound like I am really against Giant Bomb. But I am not. I mention these "shady" things but I truly think all the major game web sites are as fair as they can be (as humans) and are not "bought" by any game company.
The first minute of the latest Comedy Button has more in that vein.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No, not unless the site in question also has major news features created by and paid for by its advertisers. It's not really the same. Again - this documentary was not an idea Polygon came up with on their own, and then pursued funding for. This was an idea MICROSOFT had FOR Polygon, paid for BY Microsoft, that Polygon then agreed to do. Completely different.
Essentially, this is content Microsoft created so that they'd have something to wrap their advertising around. That is very different from Microsoft throwing their own junket and asking writers to visit, or Microsoft paying for a cool PR packet to be mailed out to writers.
Treythalomew
Member
I was laughing pretty hard when they got to the point of saying "My biggest problem is when people who send me things early for free they don't send them early enough." They got some nice jabs in on the Press Reset thing.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
akidnamededdy
Banned
It's all about perception. The average person may not know how divided the different parts of Microsoft are, but they will know that Microsoft makes the 360.
For a group looking to change gaming journalism or whatever, they really should've thought this one through a little better. I'd say they stumbled right out of the gate, but they're not even out of the gate yet...
This must be his new thing--on Rebel FM this week, he talks about Far Cry 3 "strumming the same threads..."
Most of the time, I think his writing is just him having a strum on his own thread.
What's funny to me about everyone's issue with the Internet Explorer sponsorship is that everyone's calling out Polygon and pre-boycotting the site, but no one's suddenly refusing to play their 360 or stop using Windows.
If folks think that it really is a "dirty" thing to do, isn't it just as dirty for MS as for Polygon?
If folks think that it really is a "dirty" thing to do, isn't it just as dirty for MS as for Polygon?
Graphics Horse
Member
I'm not using IE. Take that MS!
Felix Lighter
Member
Microsoft marketing's job is to market their products; it's Polygon's responsibility to shield editorial from sales. Microsoft wouldn't have done anything wrong.
IMO that shows the fundamental hypocrisy of most "consumer ethics." Saying somehow that MS is clean of ethical judgment because they're just "doing what businesses do" is a double standard.
Regardless, it really just comes down to trust. Either you trust that Polygon is keeping a firm boundary between marketing and editorial, or you don't. But nothing about this ad support seems egregious to me. And, in fact, it's far, far less ugly than what the vast majority of gaming sites do: advertise games. I simply don't think people have any ground to stand on when they call Polygon out on this.
That's not to say I don't have other problems with this video or with Polygon's over-the-top claims to revolutionize games journalism. But their ad support isn't one of them.
RedNumberFive
Banned
After finally watching Indie Game: The Movie last night, I can see that they used that for the inspiration for these videos. I'm just surprised that they were able to find people more unlikable than Phil Fish.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's not fundamental hypocrisy - it's a false equivalency. You're ignoring the journalistic responsibility here. Microsoft doesn't have to adhere to that responsibility, and is under zero requirement to do so. They're an entertainment company, who concieved of a piece of entertainment, pitched it to a news site that doesn't exist yet, and paid for that entertainment as a means to attach advertisements for their products to it. Nothing they're doing on their end is irresponsible from the standpoint of what their aim is as a business and a company.
It is not hypocrisy to hold Polygon to one standard and Microsoft to another, especially when Polygon is muddying the hell out of the line (if not outright stepping over it) by allowing outside advertising influences to dictate the subject matter and direction of not just their own editorial feature, but at this point their site's ONLY editorial feature.
It's not a question of trust. That question's been answered, by dint of the fact the documentary exists. The boundary between marketing and editorial doesn't exist at this juncture. At all. Maybe it will later, but as of this point, it's not there.
Your point about other game websites also missing that line between marketing and editorial is well seen, and I agree, but it only serves to illuminate why, in this case, it's even more annoying; precisely because via this documentary (brought to you by Microsoft's Internet Explorer) we learn that the people at this site hold themselves to a higher standard. That means the burden to prove objectivity and impartiality in these instances is even heavier for Polygon, at their own insistence.
You're confusing "legal obligation" with "ethical responsibility." And if we're arguing law, neither MS nor Polygon is even remotely close to crossing a legal boundary. If we're talking solely journalistic ethics, that would by definition only concern Polygon. But even there, I see no problem considering that this is well beyond the standard of the majority of gaming sites. But if we're simply talking ethics and saying that Polygon is doing something dirty and slimy (as many in this thread are doing), then MS is just as culpable.
Of course, I think neither is doing anything wrong here and this whole debate is silly.
If anyone bothered to do the same amount of digging into any corporate media outlet (regardless of the medium), you'd find far more egregious and abundant examples than this relatively innocuous example at Polygon. Part of the larger probelm is that we live in an age of mass media consolidation, so everything is connected. Another part is that advertisers are targeting the same market that the media content does. The other part is that this is why people who really care about this stuff look for other funding models that don't rely on traditional advertising. If this is what you're proposing, then that's a completely different subject.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No I'm not, and we're not arguing law. I never said anything that anyone was doing was illegal, or even brought up the legality of the situation. Both parties are perfectly within their legal rights to do what they're doing. I don't think that was ever questioned, or has been brought up AS a question over the course of the entire thread.
But Polygon THEMSELVES are asking you to hold them in a higher regard than that. That is one of the overriding sentiments relayed by them, in the documentary itself, a documentary concieved and paid for by Microsoft, as a means to wrap Internet Explorer advertisements around it.
Possibly, but I doubt that most journalistic outlets have many examples of the sales department creating content for the editorial, as opposed to editorial creating content and asking sales to help finance/fund it via securing advertisements. But I do allow for the fact it does happen, and happens often. However, that doesn't make those lapses in judgment forgivable, and it makes this occurrence even more notable in that this is, essentially, Polygon's first piece of content. The site itself still doesn't even exist yet. It'd be one thing if the site had existed for 6-12 months, and then slipped up and allowed sales to dictate their editorial content once. But they are coming out the gate like this.
And if we're to take them seriously, and at their word, our reaction to this almost has to be "C'mon, guys" precisely BECAUSE they're very much trying to convince us that they're to be looked at as different/better than the enthusiast press to this point. They're asking us to hold them to this standard.
Again - I'm not arguing that anyone's broken any laws: The only probable and lasting repercussion that could come from this transaction between Microsoft and Polygon is that Polygon's credibility/integrity will be considered damaged, or worse - saleable.
Definitely agree there. I think they shot themselves in the foot by setting the bar higher than they can probably hit. Seems to be true throughout their current content. A lot of flashy style, but the substance is the same as every other gaming site. And they no doubt invited all of this additional scrutiny.
I just don't find anything especially questionable about the way this video series has been funded. I mean, hell, it's not even a real documentary. It's an extended advertisement for Polygon... which, by the way, is why it may have been spearheaded through the sales department rather than editorial. The video itself is already an ad. I think many of the trigger-happy critics in this thread have lost sight of that fact.
If this video doc were a sign of their upcoming editorial practices, then you all might have a more solid point. But this video isn't editorial content. It's advertising/promotion.
I happen to think there are some very good reasons to be skeptical and critical of what Polygon is doing in general (and in their actual content). I just don't think this video funding "issue" is one of them.
This is a joke post, right? It's not a double standard. It's a completely separate standard, since only one of the parties involved is professing to be a part of the fourth estate.
Except the criticism in this thread is inconsistent (not unexpected considering the number of different posters). Explained some of the differences already above.
Explain the logic because it's not clear at all, even in your posts following this one. Ethics and integrity clearly affects the quality of journalism more than it does consumer products.
I find it frightening that you don't see the cynicism in what you've just said.
Giant Bomb is awesome because they are a great source of entertainment. I go to them for laughs and they rarely disappoint.
Polygon sucks because they want to be a shining paragon of quality writing and ethical journalism in the squalid wasteland of video game reporting but most of the people who work there have long histories of being anything but that.
What cynicism? What are you on about?
People seriously debating the MS sponsorship? There was something like 6 Macbooks on a table in one shot in the first episode.
I just find it odd that I didn't hear about a difficulty spike in the GiantBomb review or Quick Look (haven't read any others).
If there is truly one in the game then I might have to avoid it as well.
I just find it odd that I didn't hear about a difficulty spike in the GiantBomb review or Quick Look (haven't read any others).
If there is truly one in the game then I might have to avoid it as well.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Could you point out who these people are, please?
I don't get why you listen to so many podcasts you seemingly don't like
This a thousand times.
I don't really care for 95% of the verge polygon included, so I don't go there unless the 2 writers I like directly link their stories/reviews on twitter.
I don't like ign except for a few people so again I don't bother outside of when they link their work.
Don't like anything on any of the Gawker sites that I have seen. Guess what? I don't go there.
Outside of once or twice to go check it out it seems this thread enjoys bitching so much that they intentionally read/listen/watch stuff they hate while giving them free publicity by being obsessed posting about them.
HamPster PamPster
Member
THERE WAS NO BESTIES LAST WEEK
They are the best part of Polygon, they better not kill it
They are the best part of Polygon, they better not kill it
Any time Bastion was on that friday live show was when it was a free show.
Also these Internet Explorer ads are everywhere, for example I run into one every time I load up a GiantBomb quick look.
I don't get why you listen to so many podcasts you seemingly don't like
I love not loving things.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/search.php?searchid=576211
Here are a few from the first few pages:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41255566&postcount=71
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41262171&postcount=257
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41262268&postcount=259
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41262597&postcount=267
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41267702&postcount=514
And these are just saying "I would like this if it was Giant Bomb!"
Many of the posters in this thread also post in Giant Bomb threads with praise.
But I think it's hypocritical to accuse Polygon of having no journalistic integrity while praising any other gaming website that uses anything from a game company or gets money from ads from a game company. Unless I'm missing something. People have tried to explain to me but I'm too stupid to see the difference other than Polygon being more open about accepting money from a company that is related to video games.
Note: I may be misunderstanding these posts. English is not my primary language.
Yes but they still use developers in their main site content. But when I was talking about "using developers to sell subscriptions", I was talking about having developers in their annual big live show (or whatever it is called) - which is just a big advertisement for subscriptions.
I think what I am getting is that a lot of this criticism is because people do not like Polygon members. They like Giant Bomb members so Giant Bomb can do no wrong. They dislike Polygon members so everything Polygon does is wrong.
But I will say again that it is likely that I am just be too dumb to see it.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
And is bad because... ?
Ace Harding
Member
Huh? I think thee people are saying Giant Bomb would have made it cool and not so navel-gazey. I was someone that said give the Polygon guys a break, GB did the "Building a Bomb" videos and nobody gave them shit. Then I actually saw the Polygon videos. There's nothing wrong with them making those, but they don't help make the cast of characters any more likable. If Giant Bomb did a documentary, it would (based on everything else they've produced) probably be funny and they wouldn't take themselves so seriously. It is very difficult to NOT like Jeff, Ryan, Vinny, Brad, Patrick, and the rest of those guys. They just come off as genuine and are completely aware that they are just a bunch of dudes writing about video games.
I think your last paragraph is spot on. People like the Giant Bomb guys. They are starting to not like the Polygon guys, and part of the reason is this documentary thing.
If you are trying to build a brand based on personalities, you should probably work to make those personalities likable. If it takes that much work, you are doing something wrong.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Hmm, well, what I am seeing from this is that there are people who are fans of Giant Bomb saying they would prefer they do this, either because they like their content better or they think it would be more entertaining and less self-aggrandizing. This is not quite the same as taking a website whose full thrust thus far has been "We are changing video game journalism and finally taking it seriously," doing all the things one would check off to not take them seriously. Reasonable people can differ, but I don't see this as an apt comparison. If you can point me to a situation where Giant Bomb has made a similar claim and not just talked about cartoon avatars for reviews as something that will be fun, then I will agree there is some hypocrisy there. But, more importantly, hypocrisy does not mean that Polygon is emerging from this squeaky-clean; if anything, that there are comparable web sites doing things you find equally scummy dilutes their entire narrative of being "new and different game journalism" all the more.
Your last paragraph seems unnecessarily reductive. Is there a situation for you wherein people can criticize both Giant Bomb and Polygon, or one and not the other, by taking in more details than simply "I find these two things equivalent for reasons that will stay surface-level?" We're equating individual developers to massive near-million dollar checks from a company that essentially controls one-third of the industry to advertise an upcoming website that does not exist yet. Degrees matter and just saying "You hate them because you hate them" is fairly insulting.
You're missing something. What you're missing is the essential TONE difference between Giant Bomb and Polygon.
Giant Bomb never takes itself that seriously. In fact, a major criticism could be that they joke about stuff a little too much. Watch enough of their content and you get the feeling that they understand how lucky they are to be doing what they're doing. They never claim to be more than what they are, which are a bunch of guys who do videos where they play games and talk about it.
Polygon, on the other hand, has proclaimed itself the future of game journalism. They have either outright said or implied that existing game journalism is extremely flawed and they are the future of the medium.
So when Giant Bomb does something that other sites do, for instance, it's not a huge deal because they've never really claimed that they do otherwise. The site is exactly what the label indicates.
Meanwhile, it's hard not to criticize Polygon when they imply that they're better than everybody else and that they will change gaming journalism forever, then end up doing exactly the same shit everyone else is doing. In that case, the label in no way reflects what the content is, which appears to simply be Kotaku with a shinier Web site. People will naturally want to take the piss out of it.
There's also a measure of how people prefer the personalities of the GB staff as opposed to the Polygon staff.
It's not. Giant Bomb is Giant Bomb and people like them for it. I am just saying I do not see how having Internet Explorer advertisements is worse than having developers sell your subscriptions. Both are using companies they're covering for financial gain.
Sorry. I did not mean for it to be such.
I do not feel like arguing this. It is making me speak against Giant Bomb but I have no problem with Giant Bomb personally.
I do not regularly visit Giant Bomb or Polygon (Verge). I do not listen to either podcast and do not know (or really care) about any of the members involved.
I was just genuinely curious why Polygon is accused of having no journalistic integrity because of Internet Explorer while other websites are fine for having ads and developers for financial gain.
Being funny or being serious or any of that has nothing to do with anything to me. I do not think Giant Bomb is funny (different style humour and incompatible personalities to me) and I think Polygon "changing journalism" is an impossible claim and is too egotistical.
The only thing I care about is Microsoft and Internet Explorer and how it makes it worse compared to video game advertisements of a game you're going to review or having developers help sell your website.
Sorry I really do not want to argue and this is becoming a me versus Giant Bomb thing. I really really really do not want that.
EDIT: Maybe Polygon's claim of being the future of journalism and taking Internet Explorer money is what people perceive as being worse? Would it be different if the videos were funny or Polygon joked around a lot more?
At the same time, GB guys can be serious on the Bombcast and talk about news, giving us some really good perspective. One of the things that really stuck out for me was Jeff calling the turmoil at Infinity Ward before the release of MW2. Sure, he's probably been wrong about a lot of stuff in the past, but that's something that I don't think I saw anyone predicting.
Ace Harding
Member
What did I miss? What developers are selling GB subscriptions?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Well, he shat on the idea of Bungie going indie when that news first broke. But then again, so did most people. lol
But it has everything to do with other people's perception of both sites and is essential for you to understand their points of view. The Giant Bomb staff are very good friends with a lot of developers and have them on the podcast and quicklook videos because it's humorous and interesting for people to watch and listen to. If they were trying to be a serious journalistic outlet this fact would certainly open them up to criticism over their conflicts of interest, but they're not so it doesn't.
Polygon is first and foremost presenting itself as a serious journalistic outlet and thus come under a higher degree of scrutiny for things like this. Their staff has a long collective history of poor reviews and editorials and having a huge pre-launch advertising campaign for the site itself funded by Microsoft is very different from hosting a few banner ads for Assassin's Creed.
Ideally of course none of these sites would take ad money from companies they cover but that's basically impossible right now, however we have to draw the line somewhere and IMO Polygon has crossed it.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
Except that the developers in question are personal friends and they asked them to be there to do stupid shit like eating nuggets, drink beer and shot arrows in office space..
In other hand, Polygon was asked by Microsoft to do a serious documentary about how they are going to set the high standard in game journalism with pretty hipocrital results.
That's EXACTLY it. It's not that Polygon needs to be funny, it's that they need to stop proclaiming how great they are until they actually demonstrate something that is great. I don't even care about the taking of the money, I just care that they talk a lot of shit that they can't back up.
I asked the question earlier in this thread, and it still stands: What has Polygon done differently that has changed games journalism or elevated the medium?
Until they can definitively point to something as an answer, they need to shut up, do their job, and stop the hyping.
Basically, to me, Polygon is Bode Miller at the 2006 Winter Olympics.
- Status