The suit is back.
For those who haven't read it:
I think you've said you bought PR for Viaweb. Any guidelines you can share? In short, what can founders do to best shape how they're covered?
I need to read more attentively.
Flag if this really is a bullshit post.
Edit: On re-reading I don't see this as a submarine, unless it's just for the general idea of selling watches. But I don't get that vibe.
Or, you know, maybe it's just an article about people wearing watches.
Do you assume that every article that doesn't feel like an ad is really just a well-done ad? That would be a bit bizarre, like my magic charm that keeps dragons away; don't see any dragons? My magic charm must work.
Read pg's essay. Then read this piece again. What suggests that it's truly original reporting?
I had already read Paul's essay, and still nothing set off my Secret Ad alert. Maybe I'm not cynical enough.
What suggests that it's truly original reporting?
What suggests that an article in the fashion section of the NY Times is going to be truly original reporting?
I read the article and it resonnated with me because I used to carry a watch (but never cared for wearing them). Now I have a phone to tell me the time but in practice it's sort of cumbersome. A dedicated time-telling device might actually be useful, and I was curious if other people on HN had been considering this. And in that context an article that's just an article in the NY Times seems pretty plausible; I bet a good number of people have considered that using phone to quickly check the time can be annoying.
Sure, this might be a really stealth ad or PR piece, but there might also be geek oneupmanship at play, with people eager to show off how quickly they can spot a stealth ad even where none exists.