They sell information-oriented products for marketing and are reporting on the size of such markets. That is a huge, massive conflict of interest.
It is like me saying "Look at this huge market over there, here let me help you learn how to tap into it...for $199" and then publishing it as if it was a newsworthy article.
So you have a company that is pushing a product while simultaneously publishing articles related to the value of that product without editorial oversight.
Does that not seem like a conflict of interest to you?
Simply blindly syndicating that sort of thing is the same as native advertising imo.
Look at Mashable's own copy wrt sponsored advertising,
> Every brand is an expert in its field [1]
Which is patently false. We can say, "well they didn't mean every brand, that'd be ridiculous!" and yet, the integrity of their own copy doesn't hold ... which shows that they can't even be honest with themselves/partners with respect to being objective and honest in their content.
I honestly just googled "sponsored posts Mashable" and went down this list:
http://mashable.com/category/sponsored-post/
I didn't bother looking at the dates.
Clickz:
http://www.clickzlive.com/
http://www.clickzacademy.com/training.php
They sell information-oriented products for marketing and are reporting on the size of such markets. That is a huge, massive conflict of interest.
It is like me saying "Look at this huge market over there, here let me help you learn how to tap into it...for $199" and then publishing it as if it was a newsworthy article.
So you have a company that is pushing a product while simultaneously publishing articles related to the value of that product without editorial oversight.
Does that not seem like a conflict of interest to you?
Simply blindly syndicating that sort of thing is the same as native advertising imo.