oliver2002

Looking at the #tpgawards on twitter it seems they spent quite a bit of money yesterday. It seems the programs don't care how the winners were picked as long as there is a trophy and a nice event. I hate to assume it, but Sully probably was booked as a speaker.

Adam1222

I'm sure he is very critical, honest, and transparent, and does not have any financial ties to the products at issue.

gpapadop

I can't wait to listen to the Alliant Federal Credit Union exec on the TPG podcast you guys

SanDiego1K

He gives a financial disclosure early in each podcast.

Kagehitokiri

hopefully he will keep it up, maybe podcast ends up being better format than others

old / big media switched to rush quite a while ago , not just in terms of 24 hour news cycle

Adam1222

A financial disclosure early in the podcast does not obviate the entire conflict and fraudulent relationship. Is it as vague and unclear as the disclosure on the site? Does it make clear to the average reader the entire podcast is a marketing tool to sell products, not an objective journalistic enterprise? Does it explain that guests are only willing to appear because the site sells their products? Does it explain that the lifestyle extolled by TPG and others is not easily accessible simply by signing up for credit cards? Does it provide information about credit counseling? Does it say that the site will often fail to mention better offers when they do not generate a profit to them?

Or does it say "The Points Guy *may* have a financial relationship with some of the products mentioned on this podcast. You can guess which they are, the nature of that relationship, and how that impacts the content of this podcast."

Duke787

Right because other *reputable* podcasts or interview formats don't have any financial stake or relationship or connection with the people they host. Is it really that much different than a financial analyst giving their take on CNBC about a stock after disclosing at the top of the segment they are long / short certain related stocks?

Adam1222

Yes, it is.

Duke787

Delete - not worth it

itsaboutthejourney

The piece was critical of Mr. Sorenson and seemed to link statements he's made in public with being out of touch with his customers. It was surprising to see TPG post (from one of his contributors) something so timely and critical of Marriott, and something I personally thought resonated as a source of why so many SPG and Marriott members have been frustrated with the merger.

Did TPG succumb to pressure from Marriott's PR team? Chase? Or was the 'out to lunch' headline just too controversial?



Screenshot of the TPG post that has been removed

Adam1222

Must be the impact of that hard news sellout who left AP to make money

kokonutz

First rule of trade pubs: never bite the hand that feeds you. @:-)

84fiero

I'd say it's #1 and #2 (or likely both). They could have just fixed the headline if that had been the only issue.

And people wonder why we warn folks that these sites are inherently biased and to tread carefully in trusting their -ahem- "advice".

Adam1222

And people also say this is the same as "traditional media" too, but no news organization would take down a post without explaining why, and certainly wouldnt do so due to advertiser pressure. Indeed, any real journalist would quit a publication that did so.
The whole point of this one writer's posts is to have a single "critical," i.e., objective, voice on the site.

diburning

Also, "traditional media" would most likely have an editor that would presumably read it over so that any conflicts or questions regarding a touchy subject or choice of words would be resolved BEFORE publication.