they should allow comments.  so we can post about una-clad.

Referring to the alucobond post I trust?

There burn testing is not in total compliance with my building code anyways.

You guys, really? Have you been on the internet much?

Also, sorry to break it to you but: when you get that free lunch-n-learn at the office? They actually *do* intend to get their own product name in front of you in exchange for that sandwich. It's a harsh world, I know.

I have no issue with the revenue model, but it would be cool to see a "paid content" label or something similar... perhaps something in the header indicating it is provided by a "Sponsor"? Never mind, it's already there.

My perspective: This seems so minor compared to the lack of distinction between "architecture news" throughout the industry and PR flackage - maybe it's time for an honest discussion about that?

That could be an interesting discussion, Janosh.  But I'd start with the umbrella question "Is it any different in our industry than any other?" then proceed to the specifics of our industry.

There was a piece on Arch Daily or somewhere this weekend that was complaining about how architects are portrayed in Hollywood and wishing that Holly wood would do a better job of portraying us more realistically. To which my question is "How does your actual lived experience with doctors/lawyers/accountants/schoolteachers/cops align or conflict with how those professions are portrayed in the movies, and are you sophisticated enough to understand a difference may exist?"

 

Hi Donna, I'm up for that and would propose it is different.  We've had multiple projects of ours critiuqed or otherwise covered in significant architectural publications (specifically Architectural Record and Interior Design) without anyone ever having visiting them, and with the text more or less following our own promotional materials. What would be the parallel in another industry? An art exhibition reviewed without the journalist ever being there? A journalist claiming to be in a combat zone and under fire in a helicopter he was never on? 

I get it, Donna.  (See my statement that I know it costs money to run a website.)  I guess what bugs me most is that the comments section is disabled.

And forget lunch-and-learns: where do people think that "free" college tuition is going to come from?

No incentive at all.  It's still annoying.

I have no problem with advertisements or making money from my clicks etc. I really don't even care if there is or isn't a comments section. My issue is that Archinect is calling it news. 

It is not news. It is a paid advertisement. I don't open the NY Times to look up information about ACM. I don't look to the news section on Archinect to find out information about ACM either. If a company wants to pay to put an article on the site, fine. Call it what it is and categorize it appropriately. Without changing anything else about the site, you could categorize it as a "feature" and everyone would understand what they are getting when they go to open the article.

Compare the ACM 'news' article to the 'feature' written about 3M's VHB tape being used for the facade of that double stick project.

I think Archinect got it right for the 3M one. So much so, I'm willing to comment on it, giving more traffic to the product and its features, as well as bring it up by name in this thread with a link to article. I didn't even read the ACM article because I was angered enough by finding it in the news section that I didn't even get past the disclaimer.

Which one will I remember more when it comes to cladding the next project ... probably both. But which one will I be more excited about using? VHB tape for sure. If I had a project that was using ACM, I might go out of my way to specify Reynobond and see if the fabricator can use VHB tape to adhere it to the building.

Look at page 25 of the brochure. Reynobond is already using VHB tape for adhering signs made from their product.

WHO THE FUCK CARES

While we're bitching about advertising, I'm just glad archinect hasn't adopted autoplaying video ads...  Those abominations are the quickest way to get me off your site for good. 

E_I, I can empathize with your attitude about this kind of "native advertising."  When these so-called articles aren't labeled properly, it can feel like you're being tricked into reading the ad.  Companies love this kind of advertising because it carries more authenticity than your standard banner ad, plus generate way more views (when was the last time you clicked on - or even looked at - a banner ad?).

I know the advertiser has an incentive to leave the "paid content" label off of the article, but the question is, does the advertiser or the host site have an ethical responsibility to label their ad content?