Cookaholics Bulletin Board

This is so not happening.

http://www.americastestkitchen.com/gtts ... &Scode=PF1

Gotta love this..."By clicking "Submit", I agree to be subscribed to the newsletters from America's Test Kitchen and their partners listed to the left, as well as exclusive offers. I am aware that I can unsubscribe at any time, and that neither unsubscribing nor remaining a subscriber will have any effect whatsoever on my chances of winning."

You don't get the chance of something for nothing.

Actually, they claim no advertisers, but I don't think they claim no sponsors?

And the difference between a partner listed on the left, a sponsor, and an advertiser is?

I think the difference between a sponsor and an advertiser is pretty clear. Sponsors get mentioned, advertisers place ads.

I think the difference is semantics. They both are advertising.

Well, it is not *just* semantics, since things like placement of the promotion differ. Also, fairly importantly, the nature of the message is different; typically an advertiser completely controls the message of the ad, whereas a sponsor works in conjunction with the client to work out the message. The length of contract likely typically also differs.

Normally, a sponsor and an advertiser, in conventional everyday speech, are considered differently. Whether or not they have a similar (or any) effect on editorial content is another issue, of course.

I'm just not that fond of round-about suggestions of dishonesty; this sort of thing is fairly popular ("You draw the conclusions!") in media right now, and I don't think it is a good way to go about things. Having a sponsor (or advertiser) does not automatically make one dishonest or biased (though some interesting research does suggest that even serious determination to remain un-swayed is largely unsuccessful when even gifts are given, even relatively small ones). If we think ATK is dishonest, just say so, and why.

OKOK, that wasn't really suggested here.... it gets my panties in a bunch, clearly

Paul,

I'll say it: ATK/CI is claiming "no advertisers", but is then completely erasing the line between sponsors and advertisers. For example, "participating in promotions" is something you do with advertisers ... not sponsors. I know, I'm on the board of several 501(c)3's; if we gave a "sponsor" access to our membership list for advertising purposes, the IRS would be all over our butts. And rightly so.

So, yes, ATK is being dishonest about the difference between "sponsor" and "advertiser". And once you're dishonest about one thing, it's pretty easy to rationalize being dishonest about others. I think other people on this board have already documented how CI's ratings comparisons have changed over the years in ways that "coincidentally" favor "sponsors".

So, do I think thta ATK/CI is dishonest and untrustworthy when it comes to ratings, comparisons, and product recommendations? Yes, I do.

I though I had remembered that CI didn't review products sold by sponsors, but obviously they review flours and King Arthur rates well in those evaluations.

http://bakingbites.com/2011/02/ci-taste ... at-flours/

Some more info:
http://atkpress.tumblr.com/