Can you stop with woot advertisements on the front page?

[oneMadRssn]

There have been weekly, or just about weekly, woot affiliate link advertisements on the front page. It's irresponsible false advertising, and also annoying.

They're always peddling used scratch-and-dent iPhones as "refurbished." Meaning it's misleading at best and false advertising more likely. Plus, it's not a good look having a Apple news site pushing pretty outdated tech for higher prices. If someone really wanted an old used iPhone, they could easily find one for less on Swappa, eBay, or even this forum's marketplace forum. Finally, they're repetitive and redundant.

Maybe others disagree. Let's put it to a vote.

 

[S.B.G]

What do I do about annoying ads?

MacRumors uses an advertising service that supplies ads from a pool. We do not select the specific ads shown or the specific advertisers who participate. If you find a particular ad especially ...

macrumors.zendesk.com

 

[oneMadRssn]

What do I do about annoying ads?

MacRumors uses an advertising service that supplies ads from a pool. We do not select the specific ads shown or the specific advertisers who participate. If you find a particular ad especially ...

macrumors.zendesk.com

The problem is its not an ad in the traditional sense. It's a sponsored "news" article on the front page.

 

[S.B.G]

I voted no in your poll.

From my perspective, the sponsored articles are another way @arn can generate revenue for the site while offering readers potential discounts and access to products they may not have otherwise have known about.

The supplemental income no doubt helps pay the bills for the website, the forums, the content delivery systems, site and forum development. It probably also helps pay the editorial staff a fair and living wage so they can support themselves and their families.

The fact that @WildCowboy adds that the articles are sponsored shows honesty and transparency in those articles. They could easily not disclose the sponsorship and we'd be none the wiser.

I believe it's a fair compromise and more or less, win-win for everyone.

I know it is not an easy task to run a company or website like this which survives on ad revenue. Given all the ad blockers and tools out there to stop them at various levels, they probably need to find creative ways to pay the bills and pay the staff, and this seems to be one of them.

Many of us don't like ads, myself included, but I recognize the need for them in order to make websites like these functionally viable.

If someone doesn't like the sponsored articles, they don't have to click on it. If seeing the title is still too bothersome, perhaps the person might take a walk outside and enjoy the weather and get some perspective on things in life.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I voted no in your poll.

From my perspective, the sponsored articles are another way @arn can generate revenue for the site while offering readers potential discounts and access to products they may not have otherwise have known about.

The supplemental income no doubt helps pay the bills for the website, the forums, the content delivery systems, site and forum development. It probably also helps pay the editorial staff a fair and living wage so they can support themselves and their families.

The fact that @WildCowboy adds that the articles are sponsored shows honesty and transparency in those articles. They could easily not disclose the sponsorship and we'd be none the wiser.

I believe it's a fair compromise and more or less, win-win for everyone.

I know it is not an easy task to run a company or website like this which survives on ad revenue. Given all the ad blockers and tools out there to stop them at various levels, they probably need to find creative ways to pay the bills and pay the staff, and this seems to be one of them.

Many of us don't like ads, myself included, but I recognize the need for them in order to make websites like these functionally viable.

If someone doesn't like the sponsored articles, they don't have to click on it. If seeing the title is still too bothersome, perhaps the person might take a walk outside and enjoy the weather and get some perspective on things in life.

My primary issue is that the articles are misleading. The one currently on the front page has this headline: "Deals: Woot's New Refurbished iPhone Sale Starts at $94.99 for the iPhone 6s" but buries in the second-to-last paragraph after you click-through that the products actually have "moderate level of wear and tear" with "potential scratches, dents, and dings." That is not refurbished. Even woot doesn't claim they are refurbished. That's a straight up lie by MacRumors. So you're okay with them lying to make money?

I'm not denying the site needs to pay the bills somehow, but is deceiving readers the way to do it?

My second issue is it detracts from the credibility of the site. MacRumors is recommending people purchase a "refurbished" scratch-and-dent iPhone 6s for $95 in 2020. That's not a discount nor access to products people don't know about. A new second-gen iPhone SE can be had for approximately the same $100 price with some carriers currently; and a used iPhone 6s sells for under $75 on Swappa all day long. To suggest otherwise just shows the lack of credibility.

I want this site to be better. It can be better. Being dismissive of these complaints isn't helping make this site a better experience for everyone.

 

[AngerDanger]

My primary issue is that the articles are misleading. The one currently on the front page has this headline: "Deals: Woot's New Refurbished iPhone Sale Starts at $94.99 for the iPhone 6s" but buries in the second-to-last paragraph after you click-through that the products actually have "moderate level of wear and tear" with "potential scratches, dents, and dings." That is not refurbished. Even woot doesn't claim they are refurbished. That's a straight up lie by MacRumors. So you're okay with them lying to make money?

Nobody is lying; Woot explicitly states their condition is refurbished:

My guess is that the type of refurbs Woot performs are based on functionality. They don't restore the cosmetics of the devices but do replace batteries and fatigued mechanical parts.