Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Advertising Businesses The Media

Bezos-Owned Washington Post Embeds Amazon Buy-It-Now Buttons Mid-sentence 136

McGruber writes: While reading a story in the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, I saw that the paper had begun embedding Amazon Buy-It-Now links in the middle of story sentences. For example, in this article, a sentence about the sales figures for differing covers of The Great Gatsby read: At Politics and Prose, the traditional [BUY IT NOW] version — featuring the iconic eyes floating on a blue background — sold better than the DiCaprio [BUY IT NOW] cover. This change follows the July news of much larger than expected losses at Amazon and a 10-percent decline in the Amazon's stock value. In related news, the Post reports that the literary executor of George Orwell's estate has accused Amazon.com of doublespeak after they cited one of Orwell's essays in their ebook pricing debate with Hachette and other publishers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bezos-Owned Washington Post Embeds Amazon Buy-It-Now Buttons Mid-sentence

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16, 2014 @04:18PM (#47685673)

    Ad blockers repel content providers....

    This is web 2.0, baby. We're the content providers. And ad blockers make my content providing tolerable. You want my content? Block the ads. Oh, look at that; /. does just that. "Ads Disabled Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!"

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Saturday August 16, 2014 @04:53PM (#47685775) Homepage

    It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?

    IMO, the apparent conflict of interest. In an ideal free market, ad placements are competitive. Exclusive deals between entities which enjoy very large market-shares in their respective markets have a high probability of inhibiting GDP growth in the long run, according to both empirical and theoretical economics.

  • by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Saturday August 16, 2014 @06:12PM (#47686057)
    It would cost no more than current systems

    This is factually incorrect. Even assuming single payer medical care is done separately and paid for all the welfare in the US a generous (Obama's)probable discretionary budget [nationalpriorities.org] generously proportioned (assume 100% of labor, agriculture, housing, veterans benefits, and internal affairs budget go to welfare) gives 320 billion to welfare. Divided by the population of the US that's a little over $1000 per person. Now add mandatory spending (the above link includes this information) and assume 100% of food and social security spending counts as welfare, again divide by the population of the US. That's about $4400 per person. Total: $5400 per person and that assumes not a cent is needed for program administration. Your proposed amount of basic income comes to $450 per person, per month. If you want that to rise to a number people can live on you're going to have to significantly raise taxes or print 33 to 50 percent more money.

    Given the percentage of people who cannot be profitably employed today and given the rate at which technology is increasing that percentage I believe basic income is an absolute necessity. But we need to be realistic at how much it costs and create a realistic plan for implementing it.
  • Why the fuss? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Saturday August 16, 2014 @08:14PM (#47686523)

    Just add 'washingtonpost.com##.buyitnow' to your adblocker and never see it again.

    I don't care who does it for what reason, if it's the owner, his son or his dog, I just block it as soon as I see it.

  • by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Sunday August 17, 2014 @01:01AM (#47687509) Homepage
    I was wondering why the Washington Post was spamming me! How did the Washington Post get my email address? Now I know. Jeff Bezos is allowing his "personal purchase" [politico.com] to have the email address I gave to Amazon.

    Bezos apparently bought the Washington Post so that he can use it to try to force legislators to give him attention. The U.S. is becoming even more a rich-get-richer country.

    The subjects of the spam messages:

    {SPECIAL PREVIEW} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

    {24 HOURS ONLY} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

    {EXTENDED} Summer Sale: JUST $19 -- SAVE UP TO 81% OFF -- for One Year of Unlimited Digital Access!

    I think it is a very effective advertising campaign. The effect will be that people will try to avoid buying things from Amazon. Also, after the "Summer Sale", digital access to the Washington Post will cost $100 per year!

If God had not given us sticky tape, it would have been necessary to invent it.

Working...