Re: UKNM: Herpes, pregnant women and other custom publishing projects...

[Ray Taylor]

Sajid Mohammed wrote:

> 

> Flicking through a copy of Details (poor US copy of The Face IMHO), I

> noticed an advert for a drug called Crixivan, used by HIV+ people. It

> had a URL tucked away for a site called http://www.stayhealthy.com/

> 

> When you go to the site, it's a subtle one - you're seduced into

> thinking it's purely informative site about a whole wealth of health

> related issues. Start to drill down though and you find that the

> 'digestive health' section is headed by a great big banner for Zantac

> 75.

> 

> Very subtle, very insidious and it also services more than one pharmco.

> 


What's the problem? I keep seeing Web developers moaning about not

enough sponsorship but this is sponsorship and apparently very good

sponsorship. Drug companies should sponsor health information. They have

enough money to do it.


> The questions to be addressed will always be: just how intelligent is

> the audience? How aware are they that they are being led like lambs to

> the slaughter by the P&Gs and Unilevers of this world? Will these

> sites be trusted sources of information?


In the US ads and content have traditionally been woven together. A

desire for separation is more of a parochial interest here in the UK. I

only took a quick look at the site but I saw nothing to compromise the

integrity of the content. As a one-time business press editor and still

part-time journalist I subscribe to the NUJ's code of ethics and I

really can't see a problem with this kind of thing.


If you prefer unsubtle advertising, try any of the porn sites.


> Are these sites just entertainment, with no potential as such to grow

> sales? If these advertorial sites are subtly branded, just how can one

> quantify effectiveness?

> 


Easy as pie! Build in response mechanisms.


Ray Taylor