Forum menu
If we are going to get technical or pedantic then every review you read is an ad. It may be content for us and for you the reader but for the brand that supply the test kit it is dealt with and budgeted for out of the brands marketing budget.
As was once quoted by marketing legend David Ogilvy in the 50s..
"Nobody reads ads. People read what interests them and sometimes it's an ad."
This article is called sponsored content. It's content they have paid us to run on the site. We publish this type of article frequently. You can call it advertising, sponsored content, advertorial and probably many other names. If it's an ad or not depends on a viewpoint. I guess I would differentiate what we recognise as traditional ads intermixed with the layout of the webpage and marketing copy like this by the fact you can't escape the displays ads but you can certainly choose to not read the sponsored content.
An advert dressed up as something else
It literally says "sponsored" twice before you get to the article.
It's hardly an attempt at subterfuge 😀
Personally I have no problem with infomercial/advertorial or whatever you want to call it content when it is clearly marked as such which it was in this case. My complaint is that in this case it is selling a £10 product for £30 and I don’t see the £20 of value they are offering. I view this company as taking advantage of people who don’t realise they are paying an extra £20 due to the way they present the application process. Legally fine afaik and run this type of content if you want but morally I don’t like it
It’s hardly an attempt at subterfuge 😀
Not on Mark's part, no.
On e-visa's - a different story.
You have to dig around to find any indication that they're charging you extra. The fine print is buried away at the bottom of a page full of guff, in a small font, in a low contrast text box. The button with 'apply now' is at the top of the page...
I wonder whether whoever copied it onto the sponsored article felt a wee twinge of guilt as they did so.
No different to sites which used to offer up EHIC and drivers licence applications. Martin Lewis calls them shysters, and says that they should be illegal. They say they provide a service- the only service they provide is an electronic transcription of the data you give them onto another form.
If we are going to get technical or pedantic then every review you read is an ad. I
Do they pay you to review their products and supply the copy? Then your reviews are ads and you should probably say so. If they loan you a product and you write an honest appraisal, it's a review. If they give you the product and you write a review you should probably mention they gave you it gratis as that could be seen as an inducement to write a misleading puff piece masquerading as an article.
I sympathise and you aren't the only ones in this position, motor magazines have had to tread a very fine line for years - too critical and you'll never get another loaner from them. Not critical enough and people will see that you are just a schill for a car manufacturer.
An ESTA application is one of the simplest online forms to complete.
If you allow enough time for any queries to be resolved there is no need for any external service.
At a stretch I can see some possible benefit if you apply within a few days of travelling; then there may be some benefit in a 24/7 support service provided, of course, that the offered service is what's claimed.
If we are going to get technical or pedantic then every review you read is an ad.
Why doesn't it say so on your reviews then? 😛
It is weird isn't it, how influencers now have to declare sponsored content if they get free stuff. But magazines don't.
Pfft, honestly I could not be arsed either way. I haven't read the front page in eons except for FGF.
Look at it like you would PPI, yes you could do it yourself but if you can't be arsed here's someone to do it for you.
Much ado about nothing.
All these articles are sponsored and paid for by brands we work with.
Presumably not all of them - only the first three or four are labelled sponsored? Nobody will be surprised that the filters on the STW website are a bit ropey!
I suspect the reason the other articles are tolerated is (1) they are actually bike related (2) the style is broadly in line with what you expect from the magazine. Yes there may be a bias towards the vendor but actually they mostly don’t seem to be directly promoting the virtues of the product (the latest Dave Gould one is a bit naughty as whilst listed as sponsored on a skim read it wasn’t obvious who was promoting it - I’m guessing Canyon? But you could certainly read that without realising it was an ad). In contrast you’ve taken the sort of content that could belong in the magazine - it would be perfectly reasonable for STW to run an article on the practicalities of travel in the post Brexit era and options for EU touring etc, as well as covering options and limitations of ESTA, and even the options for getting these things (whilst getting visas is a bit of effort getting an ESTA is less effort than shipping something internationally with DHL/FedEx etc!). The issue is that whilst the rest of the sponsored content seems to be the sort of thing we would expect in the mag (and written by your team?) this gives some sort of impression that STW/GoFar endorse this approach. You can hide behind the “we put a sponsored tag on it” if you want but as Scotroutes alludes to there will be products which even if they produced content with a tenuous bike link you would say no thanks to. Accepting such content cheapens the STW brand; showing it to paid subscribers dilutes the benefits of becoming a subscriber.
I’m not sure I’m getting across what I mean. Reviews are reviews. They are not paid for. We don’t get given bikes to keep. The test kit always belongs to the brand and we are not leaned on to write anything other than what we think about any product. What I’m saying is that from ours and your perspective it’s editorial content. From a brands perspective it’s marketing. Why would they supply at their own expense the bikes and gear otherwise?
Reviews are not labelled as marketing like sponsored stories are because we are not paid to produce them we are always clear to label content we are paid for to produce up front and at the end. We label who covers any expenses if they are not covered by ourselves. In a market where the end consumer is still reluctant to pay for content this type of relationship is very much still needed to pay the costs of journalism. I think I might have said that on here before. Probably many times 🙂
An ESTA application is one of the simplest online forms to complete.
If you allow enough time for any queries to be resolved there is no need for any external service.
At a stretch I can see some possible benefit if you apply within a few days of travelling; then there may be some benefit in a 24/7 support service provided, of course, that the offered service is what’s claimed.
I forgot to renew mine once, and couldn’t work out why I couldn’t checkin for the US leg of my flight but could for the EDI-LHR leg. Nobody at Edinburgh spotted it / could explain and said just to checkin when I got to London. Only then did I discover the problem - with the gate already open for my connection! I still managed to get an Esta and make the flight. I wouldn’t recommend this approach - but it clearly shows it’s easy to do, even when stressed and only using a phone. The only person I know who hasn’t had the Esta virtually instantly registered his twin boys and the second one took 24 hours, presumably having triggered some “this looks like the same DOB/address/surname” alert.
In a market where the end consumer is still reluctant to pay for content this type of relationship is very much still needed to pay the costs of journalism. I think I might have said that on here before. Probably many times 🙂
And I think most of your audience (directly paying or contributing by consuming ads) will recognise and support that. I think however most people are questioning whether there is any journalism in the controversial advertorial. Perhaps the other Sponsors are just as dodgy and we don’t realise it. Perhaps they’ll feel their content value is diluted by the presence of such posts and vote with their cheque books.
The ads you see pay a fraction of what they once did. In fact I think I once calculated that a typical daily user who does not block ads helps add a few pence to the grand total. That’s an average. If you dont click an ad you basically contribute nothing.
ads are paid for by the advertiser in number of clicks. They are measured by publishers in cost per thousand views because that makes calculations easier. But ultimately no clicks means no money. But don’t click an ad unless it interests you. Ultimately it has to actually work. Luckily we have traffic at such a scale that we can earn a decent amount. Buts it’s maybe half of what it returned just a few years ago.
No one will care cos I've got the cheapest subscription and rarely contribute to the forum nowadays, but I just wanted to add my voice to the disappointment at what I think is a massive misjudgment.
To be clear my shock is not that this happened initially, but that once it's been noticed, rather than the oops, sorry, we've pulled it that I would expect, you've (Mark) gone to bat for these shysters and justified their laughable claims of adding value. I'm genuinely shocked by the response given how widely it is recognised that these things are cons, accepting that they may be legal cons.
Your response has me questioning whether I've previously overestimated your intelligence or your ethics since I honestly have difficulty believing that you can believe in that justification you provided. Sorry, I know that's a bit personal but that's how it's made me feel. I realise my £20 a year won't do as much for for your 45:55 revenue split as taking this money from conmen.
So there we are, one subscriber pissed off enough to consider canceling membership vs a business with more than questionable ethics pumping in, I'm sure, more than 20 quid. The right business decision is probably obvious. Best of luck, fwiw I think I might be "oot" if that's how it has to be to make the numbers work.
edlong’s summed it up nicely. I’m in the same twenty quid boat, (although I did buy a t-shirt recently and pay for a couple of ads). You’re wrong Mark, and it’s the not admitting you’re wrong that’s the most disappointing. They’re bloody crooks whichever way you look at it, so stop justifying your decision and pull the bloody thing.
I'm amazed TBH.
It's not illegal or immoral, at worst it's a bit of a rip-off for people who don't read the small print. How far do you go, do you refuse to watch TV because Dominos pizza is overpriced for what it is, or Compare the Meerkat also skim a commission off your business? Skin creams don't really work that well?
It's a business and subscribers (particularly free ones - oxymoron) don't pay the bills sufficiently. In an ideal world it would be great to pick and choose your advertisers based on 'ethics' but it's hardly strangling baby robins for clicks?
Ooo this is a tough one. I basically supported Marks view until I read the ad. It's very deceptive. The text box after really helps as it makes it clear that you can go direct as well, but the advert is cleverly written and super designed to make you think it's the official site. Not going to or even slightly thinking of cancelling anything over this but it does feel a bit out of place.
Really theotherjonv, you can’t see a problem, where do you draw the line?
It IS morally wrong, just like those 99.9% APR loan ads on the telly, they’re legal, but morally corrupt.
No, not really, it (stw) is a business with employees and bills and needs must. I'd prefer they didn't have to but I'd like lots of other things, and it's not a resigning matter in my opinion
I've been a subscriber since before issue 1, so I'm definitely very pro STW in general and not prone to moaning just for the sake of it.
However, this is not cool. The sole purpose of businesses like this one is to mislead people into thinking that this is how you get an ESTA, and get money out of them in exchange for essentially nothing. That's the bottom line. They may be legal, they may claim to add some value, but we all know that the way that they make their money is by misleading the gullible or busy. Claiming otherwise is either dim or disingenuous, and really does undermine the perception of journalistic integrity. I'd rather let my business go under than host that kind of crap.
It’s not illegal or immoral, at worst it’s a bit of a rip-off for people who don’t read the small print.
And that’s how people get ripped off legally, preying on the people who aren’t amazingly IT literate.
but we all know that the way that they make their money is by misleading the gullible or busy. Claiming otherwise is either dim or disingenuous, and really does undermine the perception of journalistic integrity.
+1. I know people who’ve been (legally) conned into things because of shady selling tactics like these so I’m out. Defending the ad knowing full well what they get up to is just rubbish. Sub cancelled ASAP.
I know its a fine line between a practical, defensible, judgement call that you made on this from a financial/operational point of view, and something that really needs a bit more editorial oversight.
This does feel a lot like the latter.
Perceived by most as something that really isn’t cricket. Maybe time to put the shovel down?
The people who run that site are conning people.
I was away from home and the Mrs was trying sort financial stuff for her disabled father, quite a stressful situation for her.
Ended up paying about £80 for a copy of his birth certificate off a scam site instead of £11 off gov.uk.
Absolute charlatans.
I really think that article should be dropped or a line added at the top explaining you can do it direct for a lot less money, with a link to the official site.
I renewed my expired ESTA on my phone at the airport check in desk. Took minutes.
Wow. I didn't think it was that bad, honestly but I'm clearly in the minority.
I get it's a matter of degree and being charged extra for a service that isn't much of one is galling, but really 'I'd rather my business went under than host that crap'?
It's not a scam in my book, use their 'service' and you'll get an ESTA, not someone running off with your money. It's an overpriced 'service'.
And I guess also importantly to me, an ESTA from memory is about $20 and these sites put $10-15 on top. Not hundreds, and it's in my mind not the same as a payday loan company that'll charge you over and over and over when the interest outweighs what you can repay, or charging £80 for an £11 certificate.
And finally, and flame me for it (yes, I get it's the principle too and where is the line) but they are trying to sell ESTA's on the back of a MTBing trip to Colorado. Or to people who've spent £1000's worth of holidays to the US. Their target is not dare I say it people that can't afford it if they can't spend the time to read the small print.
It's not a slightly overpriced service. It's making money by deception, just staying slightly on the side of being legal.
If their clear message was (much like the Post Office check and send thingy for passports) something like "ESTAs cost $14. If you pay us some money on top then we'll check your application to see if you've messed anything up" then it'd be fair enough (though there's a pretty limited set of errors that they could catch, hence the widely held belief that they actually provide nearly zero for the money). Whenever I've read stuff (including this article) it's not posed quite as openly as that though, and it's not hard to understand why. So it's the motive, the business model, the whole point being that they exist specifically to charge people for something that people wouldn't want or need if they described more clearly what they're doing.
And whether rich mountain bikers can afford to be fleeced for a few quid is not the point at all - these companies should not be supported or encouraged at all.
It’s not a scam in my book, use their ‘service’ and you’ll get an ESTA, not someone running off with your money. It’s an overpriced ‘service’.
What is the service they are providing? It's totally parasitic.
With regards to the claim that they 'have' to do this. I'd feel much more like subscribing (and I have in the past) if:
A) the website worked reliably, including on my phone
B) the website owners weren't so grumpy/unhelpful about stuff that doesn't go right
C) the adverts they do have weren't so spammy and intrusive
I realise this is a bit of a catch 22 as they feel they need to do this stuff to make money as not enough people subscribe, but it really puts me off and spoils any sense of goodwill around using the site.
So it’s the motive, the business model, the whole point being that they exist specifically to charge people for something that people wouldn’t want or need if they described more clearly what they’re doing.
This.
Website works reliably for me on both phone and laptop.
Examples of website owners being grumpy/unhelpful?
Subscribers have ad free web browsing.
Would be interesting to know from Mark the impact of 25% of current free members converting to paying subscribers assuming digital only.
It's been slightly better recently but it's still the worst-performing website I use, by some distance. Especially on my (brand new) phone.
The whole transfer to the new site was an absolute shitshow, and I imagine that's where they've lost the most revenue of all because many people pretty much stopped using the site, me included.
@Mark I'd like to apologise for what I said about you personally earlier. That was out of order.
Wow. I didn’t think it was that bad, honestly but I’m clearly in the minority.
I think you're probably not the minority its just the actual minority are very loud.
Fwiw in with you.
It’s making money by deception
What specifically is the deceit?
The box, lifted from their ESTA application webpage is explicit that you can go direct to the Gov for $14, and says what you get for the service. It's up to the user to decide whether the service is value for money.
If you go into a bike shop and buy a component are they deceitful if they don't inform you that there's another shop in the town that'll sell it cheaper?
Look, I get that some people don't like the concept, we're going to have to agree to disagree on how bad the moral sin e-visa are committing is.
But STW for taking their ad which is also a (semi) informative piece on the cycling in the area to the point where people are questioning the site owners own ethics and cancelling their subs, you all just seem a bit pitchforky.
The 'ad' now has a big box directly underneath, and a growing list of comments (uncensored, BTW) all pointing out that using them for an ESTA is a waste of time. Frankly STW are almost now getting the money under false pretence by featuring an ad followed by al oad of comments saying 'don't use this service' (and yes I know that the complainers have already forced Mark to offer the money back if so requested, so cutting that revenue stream)
What specifically is the deceit?
So it’s the motive, the business model, the whole point being that they exist specifically to charge people for something that people wouldn’t want or need if they described more clearly what they’re doing.
You're totally right that the info that "you can get this cheaper by going direct" is actually there on the website. But I believe that the web page is specifically designed to have that information present in order to give them a defence, but buried far enough down below the other stuff that most people won't get so far as to read it. I believe that anyone who has ever completed an ESTA application would agree that filling in that information somewhere else, for it to then be transcribed, would be of zero benefit. So I believe that the whole basis for this business idea is to fool people into paying for nothing. That's why I think it's uncool. I absolutely respect others' right to disagree, and I have not threatened to cancel my subscription (nor will I).
It's a totally different scenario from shops charging different prices for a product. For one thing, everyone knows that there are other shops, and prices may vary. And the shop is actually doing something in selling you that product. These websites are literally doing nothing except acting as a middleman to take some money off you, and posing that as a perfectly normal way of getting an ESTA. It's the sort of thing my parents would fall for, which is perhaps why I'm so against it! 🙂
It’s a totally different scenario from shops charging different prices for a product.
You seen some of the comments here when folk ask about how much bike shops charge for what they see as easy tasks?
For me there's a fundamental difference between "do you want to buy this thing for £x?" in a shop, and this where it's pitched as "do you want to buy an ESTA for £x?" but is in fact "do you want to buy an ESTA for $14 and also pay us a bunch of cash for nothing at all?"
When I'm made benevolent dictator (it's only a matter of time now), this'll be solved fairly easily. I'll just force the owners of businesses like this to change their content so that it's blindingly obvious what they're offering and providing, posed as $14 for the ESTA plus their extra, with a complete description of the checks that they perform (that aren't done by the ESTA website itself). The owners will have to maintain and live off that business for the next 5 years. If it's viable on those grounds then fine! If not then they get poor.
Oh and to be clear again, for me this business model is essentially 'con the gullible'. I don't think it makes Mark and co. evil by running the ad. But I definitely wouldn't, for me it's dirty money, and supporting it is not OK in my view. If a friend was doing it then I'd call them out on it and let them know my thoughts, but I wouldn't be disowning them. That's what I'm trying to do here - essentially being an honest friend to STW.
The way these companies work is normally to work Google searches so their result comes up first when you search for ESTA Visa or other paid for government service (there are some other similar “legal” scams). The sites all look very helpful and genuine and you’ll probably get what you want.
However I f they charged £1 or £2 it still wouldn’t be worth it as the sites that they “help” you with are government sites which are generally very easy to follow and use. The only thing you are getting with the charge they levy is another step in the chain and potentially less security as well - giving all you details to an unknown company for no reason - no thanks!!
If you were to compare it to a bike shop it would be like a group of people buying land in front of a bike shop and setting up huge banners to obscure the bike shop then having lots of brochures out showing you the bikes they can get for you and how they’ll make the buying process easier. Then after they charge £200 extra for the bike they just go into the shop and it then handover to you. If you get any issues you have to hope they are still around to be the middle man and hope the name and address and bank card details you gave them is secure too.
One other similar one is for Waste Carriers Licences - if you go straight to gov.uk a standard one is £154. However there are 3 paid for adverts if you search for that term on Google which come above the gov.uk result, all of which charge a lot extra, the one I checked charges an extra £110 - £264. It’s such an easy form to fill in on gov.uk and if you ring up they’ll take you through it if you want for free. It takes 10mins to fill in max and they charge £110 extra for it, a legal scam but still a scam.
I’ve had a long think on this and we’ve had a staff discussion today too. The decision to run this sponsored article was mine. They approached Ross our marketing guy and he asked me if it was ok. I checked the site. Checked they weren’t pretending to be something they are not. I checked their customer reviews. I judged it to be an authentic business with a high customer satisfaction score. So I told Ross we could run it.
However, I misjudged the reaction to it and in retrospect my decision was wrong and I should have anticipated that. That’s on me.
I’ve talked with the staff about what we do now. I’ve added the text from the e-visa website to add clarity about the service they offer. I’m not going to pull the article because we have a good faith agreement with the agency that provided the copy.
However, we (more accurately I) have learned from this and we will not run sponsored features of this type in the future.
Your strength of feeling is clear and I appreciate it. You expected more from Singletrack and on this I got it wrong.
Sorry everyone.
Mark
If you were to compare it to a bike shop it would be like a group of people buying land in front of a bike shop and setting up huge banners to obscure the bike shop then having lots of brochures out showing you the bikes they can get for you and how they’ll make the buying process easier. Then after they charge £200 extra for the bike they just go into the shop and it then handover to you. If you get any issues you have to hope they are still around to be the middle man and hope the name and address and bank card details you gave them is secure too.
Good analogy, if I want to be picky
- then having lots of brochures out showing you the bikes they can get for you and how they’ll make the buying process easier, but also pointing out you can go straight into the shop if you want
but also pointing out you can go straight into the shop if you want
...buried at the end of a load of guff, because if it were up front and central then nobody would buy from them. That just wouldn't be a viable business without relying on people not noticing that aspect.
Anyway, totally respect your decision Mark. Thanks for giving this your thought and attention.
Mark - that’s a top post. Everyone makes mistakes, not many own up to them! Good on you. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
TS.
Full respect mark and other for keeping up on this thread even on the weekend. And thanks for the explanations it’s much appreciated.
The Google approach to this is what really winds me up @b230ftw … so many people fall for that … click on the first “result” and have your money taken off you for nothing. If only Google were anywhere near as socially responsible as Mark and the rest for the Singletrack crew.
Thanks for the rethink, and what I said was still out of order and my apology for that stands.
+1 for your response Mark.
And +1 kelvin for your observation about Google.