Editorial: Despite Recent Controversy, Gamespot Still Hasn’t Learned
The Gamespot homepage has undergone a massive facelift yet again, courtesy of CNET’s crack advertising sales team. The site is currently promoting Propaganda’s upcoming dinosaur hunting simulator, Turok, due out on February 5 for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC.
I have no doubt whichever one of the site’s editors has been selected to review the game is absolutely terrified right now. And it isn’t just the bite of a velociraptor, he fears.
I don’t believe that a single Gamespot reviews editor would intentionally and willingly mislead the site’s audience. But in the recent wake of Jeff Gerstmann’s controversial firing, it has become all-too-common knowledge that Gamespot editors no longer feel that they can provide readers with unsullied reviews, out of fear of the repercussions they may face from CNET’s new higher-ups.
Make no mistake, I’ve heard nothing but good things about the site’s editorial team. It did not perpetrate the recent injustice suffered by Gerstmann, but instead, fell equally as victim. But when Turok’s reviewer came to the sad realization that his job might be at stake upon seeing those ads go live yesterday, you cannot for a moment deny that all journalistic objectivity went out the window.
I personally haven’t had the opportunity to play Turok first-hand yet. For all I know, the title might be Game of the Year material. But the unfortunate reality is, we cannot pay credence to any final evaluation Gamespot bestows upon the game.
I’d like to make one thing perfectly clear: We’re not accusing Turok’s publisher, Touchstone Studios, of overstepping any boundaries by trying to influence the editorial team’s final verdict of the game. To the best of our knowledge, it has not done so. Nor do we oppose videogame companies advertising on videogaming websites or in game publications in general.
However, in firing Gerstmann, CNET has handed down to his former colleagues a mandate that rings loud and clear: The ad sales team carries more weight than the editorial team.
Here’s how we envision things playing out: Worst case scenario, the reviewer sugar-coats his review of the game in fear of finding himself otherwise terminated.
Worster case scenario, he speaks freely, and finds himself without a job the next day.
Yesterday, CNET named Ricardo Torres the new Gamespot editor-in-chief. It was a move meant to restore some of Gamespot’s lost credibility, and Greg Brannan, CNET’s vice president of content for the entertainment and lifestyle division, took the opportunity to reassure the public that everything at corporate HQ is sunshine and rainbows:
“I’m extremely confident in his [Torres] ability to maintain GameSpot’s tradition of excellence in being the most reputable and outstanding game content site on the web,” said Brannan.
A few hours later, the Turok ads began appearing, as if on cue. And suddenly, it felt as if CNET was saying “Hey, we’ve got a new editor-in-chief now, so you can all go back to respecting us. By the way, here are some very subtle messages from one of our sponsors.”
The unabashed audacity of CNET, to flaunt this in the face of both Gamespot’s audience and its own editorial team, all of whom have suffered greatly since Gerstmann’s firing, is completely unforgivable.
What the new CNET management strongmen have consistently failed to recognize is that Gamespot’s success is not predicated upon its ability to serve an overabundance of ads unto the masses. Its success is predicated upon its reputation as one of the most trustworthy sources for videogaming information in the world. These new Turok ads will only serve as a catalyst to question, yet again, the integrity of Gamespot’s reviews.
In big bold letters, one of the ads now appearing on Turokspot urges players to ‘SURVIVE: 2.05.08’
Come February, when it’s time to write his review of the game, one unlucky Gamespot editor might have to take that suggestion too literally.
Update- 12:00 PM EST 1.29.08
The Turok ads are no longer visible on the website. Whether they were pulled permanently or will be returning remains to be seen.
Related Stories
Comments
12 Responses to “Editorial: Despite Recent Controversy, Gamespot Still Hasn’t Learned”
Leave a Reply
Hey Alex,
This is Tor Thorsen, News Editor at GameSpot here. One level, I want to thank you for your support of the editorial team. On another, I want to assure you that we GS editors aren’t cowering in half-submerged tiger cages while ad sales coordinators poke us with bamboo spears as we hammer out copy on rusty typewriters.
The simple fact is, sales has NEVER come over here to the GS edit area and told us how to write a review, ever. In fact, we’ve been assured repeatedly in the past few weeks that the wall that already stood between edit and sales is being reinforced to avoid any sense of impropriety.
Obviously, having the whole site slathered–or “skinned”–in ads for a particularly isn’t exactly helping that sense of impropriety go away. However, many other sites offer similar degrees of ads on their sites, and I don’t see anyone going around kicking IGN, 1up, and others in the proverbial groin for doing the same thing. Is the timing great for a skin campaign now? Probably not. People should keep in mind, though, we have run these kind of ads for years–this isn’t some edict from the New Order in 2008.
Obviously, there’s more scrutiny on us now, and we editors know that–trust me, we know all too well. We also know whomever reviews Turok will be doing so without fear of being punished or disciplined for speaking his mind. Though it may not look it from the sight of those ads, the review editors who remain here are confident they can review games without interference from management, only feedback from other editors. Those that have left have their own reasons (I won’t speak for them), but I can say they did not do so because they were worried about being told how to write by an account executive.
Like you say, Alex, running ads is fine as long as the reader knows that said ads don’t affect the content you read on the site running them. The reason I started working at GameSpot in 2003 is because I knew I could trust its reviews, news, and previews implicitly. (Even though I did think they let the Getaway off a tad easy in 2003.) In spite of GameSpot being tried, sentenced, and executed in the court of public opinion, I still think that. If I didn’t, I’d be headed for the exit too.
thorsen
For the game players (I consider myself a casual console gamer), the worst sin a reviewer can do is to give a whitewash review. Games are not cheap, and they get more expensive every decade (even though games companies promised reduced prices with volume in the 80’s and early 90’s). The laws and/or sales/licensing arrangement in the stores mean we cannot return a shitty game, and there are far more shitty games than good games.
We are sick to death of being lied to by advertisers, as well as bad reviewers. I wish I could still buy UK gaming magazines with reviewers like they had in 1991. They told the truth, and did it with humour as well.
I will continue to refuse to buy any game title until I have tried it myself, until a trustworthy game review site appears… of course your site is off the list permanently. Unfortunately too many young reviewers are blinded by the stars in their eyes when they get their favourite genre of game to review, or from their favourite company, so it is hard to find a good reviewer, not to mention a stable of them.
Gamespot still hasn\’t learned, in fact they\’re getting worse | Deliggit.com…
primotechnology.com
Primotech digs into why Gamespot has not only not learned from Gerstmanngate,…
Thanks for taking the time out to respond, Tor. We really appreciate the input from someone on the GS team.
Nice reply Tor, I hope for your sake that it stays that way, but…
The Turok skinning ads where tasteless. Unfortunately, it only shows that your management is not singing the same tune as you, and that they believe this will all be forgotten and gone in a month.
However high a wall is built, it only needs a little chink to be next to useless. With many a chink marring its face, your wall is already shaky for most of us, while your management seems to be taking sapping lessons… (read: they’ll be back at it soon enough)
Alex, I don’t see the ad in your images. Please use less subtle reporting techniques in the future.
[...] PrimoTechnology - Editorial: Despite Recent Controversy, Gamespot Still Hasn’t Learned [...]
Quite a damning headline, followed by a luke warm article. I’m not a journalist, but I am a web developer who has worked for ad firms and made a fair share of web banners. I assume most people do the same thing I do when browsing, which is to ignore most (if not all) banners and focus on the content. Maybe Alex hadn’t payed attention to the advertisements on GameSpot before the entire Gerstmann Gate fiasco. Full page take over ads have been on GameSpot (and others) for a long time and I don’t see how it’s been an issue before last December. I’ve never heard of Primotech before and I’m going to assume –since it’s advertising is handled by Google Ad Sense– the site isn’t managed like larger web entities. Perhaps that is why Alex comes off as unfamiliar with standard ad practices and why he seems so surprised or excited about the Turok ad.
Your headline is sensational enough to be a Fox News article, the actual article reads as being angsty and, in my opinion, mislead. It seems like CNet is the one that needs the pressure applied and I don’t fell that this article was very tentative to that. It’s focused on the spectacle… perhaps to get the read count up. I’ve never seen this site before, I’ll be sure to keep an eye on it in the future, but this is by no means a good start.
Taylor,
Thank you for your feedback. I only hope you’ll return to see this response.
Perhaps I did not make this clear in the editorial: I still have the utmost respect for Gamespot and only object to the actions taken by its new management team at CNet. I do believe that GS’s name has been unfairly sullied given the recent issues it has been facing, but sadly, CNet has neither explicitly admitted that there has been any wrongdoing and obviously has not taken any legitimate steps to “clean up” its act.
One thing I did not mention in the piece is that I have extensive knowledge and experience with online and offline advertising. I’ve taken university classes in PR and marketing, have familiarized myself with standard techniques employed in online advertising, and have written about a half-dozen marketing plans for both offline and online ventures.
One of the most important things I feel I have learned, however, is not how to run ads or what ads to run, but when to run them.
The point I tried to make in my article is that it’s incredibly irresponsible for CNet to begin advertising in such ways on Gamespot so soon after its recent controversy. Furthermore, if I were an editor on the site, I would feel like the Turok campaign was a slap in the face given the fallout GS suffered after the Gerstmann incident.
I have been frequenting Gamespot for half a decade and am fully aware that those “backdrop” ads have been a staple for a long time. They’re used prominently on other sites I regularly frequent; I saw one just this past hour on CollegeHumor.
I am not against those types of ads in general. I am fully cognizant of the level of competitiveness that exists in online advertising and how important it is for marketers to capture the attention of visitors in new and meaningful ways.
You are correct to assume that our advertising (and day-to-day operations in general) are not managed by any higher authority. We have been independently owned and operated since day one. As both editor-in-chief and site owner, I single-handedly handle all editorial, publicity, and marketing matters.
Now, I am fully aware that many see a potential conflict of interest in having an EIC also managing advertising. In fact, given that fact, it may even seem hypocritical for me to write an editorial like this.
If anything, the love I have for this industry should serve as a testament to why I know I can ethically and responsibly balance both roles here. For a site of our size and recognition, our ability to draw repeat visitors is contingent upon the level of trust readers have for us. A surefire way to lose that trust is to have advertisements that undermine the published editorial content, and I take every step possible to ensure that does not happen.
You currently only see Adsense ads here because I have chosen not to have us participate in any third-party advertising campaigns at this point in time. We regularly receive such offers. Late last year, we ran ads for Orcs & Elves and Crysis.
I have turned down advertising campaigns for titles that I a) knew would not be relevant to our readership and b) knew were not going to be well-received by critics. As the site’s owner and chief operator, I reserve that right. For every five advertising offers we get, I probably turn down four.
If I come off as “angsty,” it’s only because I feel very strongly about the gaming industry, especially the journalism side. For over four years, I’ve been trying to build a gaming and tech website that I hope will be informative and entertaining for our readership. I know first-hand how much work goes into crafting a quality gaming publication, and for this reason, I can empathize greatly with what the Gamespot staffers have been going through as of late.
As for boosting our readership: If there’s one thing you’ll never see me intentional do here, it is attempt to inflate our visitor numbers with sensationalist or meaningless content. I would much rather publish something that would spark the interest or create a meaningful dialogue with 10 people, than waste even a few minutes of the lives of 10,000 people.
Being the owner of a small, independent gaming site, all I can hope to accomplish is to share the most honest and enjoyable content that my editors and I can produce, and feel confident that there are a few people out there who want to read what we have to say.
Again, thank you for the comment. The most useful pieces of feedback we get are the negative ones and I appreciate you sharing your feelings in a mature and thoughtful manner.
The only thing you said that really got to me was the comparison to FOX. That’s just low, man. :[
Take care!
-Alex
Alex,
Wow, thanks for the thorough response. I appreciate you taking the time to write back and also to qualify your thoughts and experience with and on the matter. If I had known, I probably would not have made the Fox comment… sorry ’bout that, seemed appropriate at the time. Gamespot has been such an easy target lately, and despite the loss of some of my favorite personalities there, I still have a strong sense of loyalty to the site and staff.
I appreciate what you’ve said and your stance on the game industry and it’s journalism. I’ll make sure to give Primotech a more thorough and open minded run through and I wish you luck.
regards,
Taylor
I have been an avid gamer since the days of Sega Genesis up to the Playstation 3. I currently own the Playstation 2 and 3, Nintendo Wii and an Xbox 360. Purchasing games for each system can be quite expensive at times with the cost of games going over $60 in most cases. Store policy doesn’t allow us gamers to try out a game and to bring it back if it doesn’t meet our expectations. I guess that would hurt the market, which is understandable in a sense. Therefore, we as gamers try to do adequate research about a game before purchasing it. I know I went to countless websites and read reviews before purchasing a lot of games. Gamespot was always the deciding site when I was faced with a gaming decision. But given this abrupt firing over someone giving a game a bad review, my alliances have been disrupted and can’t be put back together again. I guess to get honest, gritty and truthful reviews, us gamers are going to have to figure this one out ourselves because Gamespot is no longer at the top of the list.
Good day!,