Made The New York Times on Saturday, Slammed by Gawker on Sunday

Well, this has certainly been in interesting week. The New York Times featured me in a story about sponsoring tweeting for their Saturday edition. The article was read by Gawker, who then slammed me in their Sunday posting. Coverage from two big New York media outlets within 24 hours. Got to love it!

I would love the NY Times more had linked to my blog instead of the sponsored tweet I did. From an SEO standpoint, a link from the New York Times is almost like finding the holy grail. I can understand why Gawker didn’t link me since they hate everything sponsored tweeting stands for. However, Gawker will gladly do a sponsored post for you. Double standards, maybe?

The Times article is what you would expect from the Times, a reporting of the facts with no bias one way or the other. Gawker, on the other hand, is a blog and as such can be as bias as they want. And that’s great. I always tell new bloggers that you should never take the middle ground because everyone does that. If you want to attract attention, you have to be totally for or totally against a topic. That is what’s going to get you the press.

I suspect the real reason the Gawker writer doesn’t like me is not because I do sponsored tweets. It’s because I make more money from tweeting than he does from blogging. 😛

Make Money by Tweeting: Sign up for | Sign up for Sponsored Tweets

45 thoughts on “Made The New York Times on Saturday, Slammed by Gawker on Sunday”

  1. Michael Kwan says:

    I didn’t like the idea of sponsored tweets initially either, but it has grown on me. So long as there is proper disclosure, it’s no different than having sponsored blog posts or advertorials in a newspaper.

    1. Benjamin Cip says:

      In the same idea as sponsoredtweet, I don’t really like writing sponsored post if I’m not telling my true opinion about the products I promote.

      1. So true. Ive actually rejected a a number of tweets on Sponsored Tweets because they are either written so poorly that i cant change them. Or the products that are being promoted are not something i want any involvement of.

    2. yeah, it may lead to only sponsored tweet of twitter content.

  2. Foster Kamer says:

    Nah, it’s because you do sponsored Tweets. Most of my actual income comes from cocaine derivatives. Buy the way: BUY COCAINE DERIVATIVES! They’re selling hot and they’re the way to go. Every other commodity is going in the toilet, but blow? Goes up your nose! Buy in now. #AD

    1. Haha the Gawker got owned by John!

  3. I totally agree with you John. I’m jealous of your Twitter money too! lol. Either way, they are totally showing a double standard. If they don’t want people posting ads on their feed, then don’t have friends who advertise. Simple.

    I didn’t like the idea of ads on Twitter either but it’s a social media monster and someone has to profit from it. One day Twitter will have their own service for adserving like Facebook and Myspace.

    What’s taking them so long?

  4. jan geronimo says:

    You made more money from tweeting than this Gawker writer from his blogging. Hmmm. Very interesting. The takeaway – at least for me – is how to write in the standards of the Times, neither for or against. Just the plain facts and still come out as very engaging read. That’s tough huh? Many of us only manage to come off as bland.

  5. Sundeep says:

    If a disclosure is there then sponsored posts and sponsored tweets should be absolutely fine I think. This basically encourages bloggers and tweeple to dedicate more time and energy to it and raise the quality and ultimately take it as a full time opportunity. If there is no form of advertising and sponsorships, it would basically be killing many jobs and the spirit of entrepreneurship…. Why would one want that ??

  6. Sundeep says:

    Also, don’t think John you force anyone to follow you….. If someone doesn’t want to follow you because of occasional ad tweets, they can do so at will…….so why all the fuss ???

  7. From the Gawker post it looks like every single tweet by John is sponsored. That’s not what his timeline shows. Major fail by one blogger, major win by the other one…

  8. Yep. I do sponsored tweets, too.

    At first I thought it was going to turn twitter into one big ad but I realized that there are so many people on Twitter already attempting to sell their own stuff that the sponsored ones are just part of the stream.

    I like the full disclosure in the sponsored tweets as well. My only disappointment is that I’m not getting enough offers. Maybe my keywords are too limited. I’m not really sure how to go about it to get more sponsored tweets.

    Rock on, John. I’m half way through your free eBook.

  9. Greg Ellison says:

    Atleast you got some press out of it. It wasinteresting to read those two articles on twitter. Greg Ellison

  10. S Ahsan says:

    I was checking out my tweets in the early morning and saw yours about the NY times, it is sweet john! you got your rep out there! well deserved! good luck!

  11. Zee says:

    If he knows you make more money from tweeting than he make from blogging, maybe he should have a mindshift and do sponsored tweet. I don’t understand the big fuss when there’s legit money to be made?

  12. Tinh says:

    Congrats! That is too much love from NYT and I do love that

  13. Kajanova says:

    Everybody is jealous of how much money you make. But I guess you can get publicity from John Chow if you slam him on your blog, since you linked him and all.. maybe that was their angle.

  14. Dino says:

    Congrats to you John, too bad you didnt get back a link from NY post, haha i like the way you put it. Holy Grail true that !

    Dino |

  15. Lee Ka Hoong says:

    Congratulation John! At least you got a link to your twitter profile, I just got featured buy New Straight Times (a newspaper in my country) but didn’t get a link from them, just a text “” in the post.

    Anyway, appreciate it. 🙂

    You deserve the features John!

    1. The text surely remember by many readers Lee. 😉

      1. Lee Ka Hoong says:

        Haha hope so Dana. 😀

  16. Remember the old saying “there is no bad publicity”? Even if the NYT hasn’t given you a backlink to your blog and Gawker no link at all, I am sure you earned a few new readers because of that! SY

  17. Manga says:

    Your right, a link from the New York times would of been really cool! I believe there is nothing wrong with a sponsored tweet too, everybody wins. The advertiser gets the traffic, and the blog owner has a new way to make money. So don’t worry about it John. 🙂 Tweet away! 🙂

  18. Maybe Gawker should download a copy of your ebook onmaking money

  19. You hit the nail on the head, John. I feel that sour grapes are a big part of Gawker’s motivation in coming across quite spiteful. He would love to be on your level, and I see you didn’t give him a link either. Heheheheh!

  20. EarningStep says:

    it does matter which one is better between sponsored tweets or . try both of them so people will know which one is suitable for them.

  21. It does seem form the post that gawker will be able to bring in majority of revenue one day from such sponsored posts.

  22. Nibras Bawa says:

    All Ads can be explicit or subtle. I’d like to believe a sponsored tweet is a more subtler Ad. If anything it’s just creativity at its best. Yes people can always question if its ethical to do? Perhaps not. But in that case may be you can add a small note to say its an Ad and not necessarily your own opinion. That said, i really don’t see why Gawker should come so hard on you given the fact they also do sponsored posts. Hypocrisy perhaps? Again, its your blog, your tweet, your followers, so you should get to decide what you want to do with them. You are not promoting child pornography and drugs through sponsored tweets. You are only promoting legitimate products and services. Atleast that should count. So why this big fuss as if Mr. Chow has murdered someone? Silly to say the least. I came here having read the Gawker article. Thought i’d leave a comment. Good luck Mr.Chow

  23. you seems become star in sponsored tweet john.

  24. Dean Saliba says:

    Very true. I think that was why my personal blog beecame so popular because I did not sit on the fence on any given issue.

  25. First, congrats on the coverage.

    However, I have to disagree about the Times not being biased. All media outlets are biased. They already have a story before they even start gathering material and interviewing people. All they’re doing is building supporting evidence around the story. Fortunately for you, that story wasn’t a stomp on John Chow article rather than a plug for making money tweeting.

  26. fas says:

    That is some nice bit of publicity all for free.

  27. Congrats to you John!
    And nice worked blog.

  28. Moulinneuf says:

    One of the Gawker writter problem seem to be where you put the (Ad) sign … put it at the beginning, instead of at the end.

  29. Seriously? Was that a suck up for a link? Cause you would be in a lonely minority that doesn’t expect bias from the NYT

  30. TSP Talk says:

    Congrats on the mention in the NY Times. Too bad you didn’t get the link.

    About the Times articles reporting the facts with no bias one way or the other… That’s pretty funny…

    (That’s not my website, btw)

  31. Kevin Pasco says:

    As if you weren’t a big enough celebrity John… 😀

  32. Manuel says:

    They once took a image from my site and mentioned to domain but also no link. Well at least you got mentioned by name….

  33. Dan Lew says:

    Congratulations on getting in the New York Times

  34. iHing says:

    I’m a huge fan of the NY Times. Also NY is probably the biggest market in North America. So this is huge exposure even without the link.

  35. . says:

    Hey Esto es realmente un buen sitio. Otra gran noticia para los anunciantes por ahí subir un anuncio tan bueno. Gracias

    1. Mira, te das cuenta que, aparte de ti y mi, nadie entiende castellano? Porque no escribes en ingles como todos nosotros y como todo esta pagina web?! SY

  36. BLOGERCISE says:

    Must admit that posts like this don’t really win a lot of respect. Although it’s very amiable we can all read between the lines, and then you couldn’t resist the final passing shot!

    I think this, and the relentless sales related posts, is why certain people are slowly turning off the blog.

    Many of us still love it though ;-)!

  37. Gold Party says:

    Did you see a jump in viewership from either mention? Was there a response from the people that saw you mentioned on Gawker? I guess any free publicity is good, right?

  38. chester says:

    Yah I read that article. Well written and congrats!

Comments are closed.