Dinner Wednesday, 8-8-2018 ~ National Sneak Some Zucchini Onto Your Neighbor's Porch

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I have lived in my current town since 1995, and never went to this place before. It got a write up in D Magazine, so I gave it a try.

It is amazing to me how many good places to eat are right under my nose, and I don't know it. You have to seek them out.

CD
How true that is... Seeking them out has really curtailed my cooking at home lately..
Today we are off to a little town with a large showroom of old cars for sale.. The town also boasts of two local diners..

Might be an interesting day..


Ross
 
Grab a BA from the mid 90's and one from a year ago and compare the recipe index.:mad: That mag has gone to crap.

You mentioned that once before - I'm thinking now that so many people can get the recipes for free on the 'net that they are not selling enough magazines. Perhaps that is why they have had to up their ads to pay for it. ??

I'm not horribly impressed with the latest edition of Cook's Illus. I can't quite put my finger on it but it is different and I was not impressed.
 
Yesterday went up to the cottage to visit with my son on vacation and meet his new in-laws.

Brought along a Chicken Salad Pie, Watermelon and Italian Sausages for "lupper" (that our newly coined word for lunch and supper). I also made dessert: Strawberry/Blueberry Cookie.

Both Pie and Cookie were super delish but not easy to serve.... hmm.. a work in progress, I guess.
 

Attachments

  • 20180808_144657.jpg
    20180808_144657.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 116
You mentioned that once before - I'm thinking now that so many people can get the recipes for free on the 'net that they are not selling enough magazines. Perhaps that is why they have had to up their ads to pay for it. ??

I'm not horribly impressed with the latest edition of Cook's Illus. I can't quite put my finger on it but it is different and I was not impressed.
I’ve noticed the e-mails I get from ATC have also been more about selling their products, or their sponsor’s products than they’ve been about ingredients, techniques and recipes.
 
I’ve noticed the e-mails I get from ATC have also been more about selling their products, or their sponsor’s products than they’ve been about ingredients, techniques and recipes.

I thought the whole premise was they didn't have sponsor's "per se" but I have come to believe that their 'product reviews' are thinly veiled ads. As a side note - I also find most of their reviews don't really apply to Canadian products - food or otherwise. More than half of which I have never heard of and I'm geographically not that far from them.
 
I thought the whole premise was they didn't have sponsor's "per se" but I have come to believe that their 'product reviews' are thinly veiled ads. As a side note - I also find most of their reviews don't really apply to Canadian products - food or otherwise. More than half of which I have never heard of and I'm geographically not that far from them.
They don't have sponsors. That doesn't mean they can't promote their own products. They moved to a large new location a year or two ago and expanded their staff, so they need to make money somehow. Subscriptions certainly won't cover those costs.

No, the product reviews are not ads. Advertising is required by law to be disclosed as such.

It's an American magazine, so I wouldn't expect it to cater to Canadians.
 
They don't have sponsors...

I have had an issue with this statement from PBS for sometime. For two and a half minutes before the actual programming starts and for about five and a half minutes after it ends, you hear the names of companies and their products that "support" PBS. I see that as a sponsorship. The real difference is in where they put their "ads".

The actual time for content in a half hour show is about 22 minutes. Same as network TV. So you're getting about 8 minutes of supporter/sponsor ads and ads for other programming. Same as network TV.
 
Besides that, Andy, network TV doesn't do a fundraising event once a year month week nearly constantly. PBS has their hand out a lot. Himself and I know that when GBH is running some exclusive concert of old rockers, it's going to be a fundraising kind of day. :LOL:
 
...It is amazing to me how many good places to eat are right under my nose, and I don't know it. You have to seek them out...
How true that is... Seeking them out has really curtailed my cooking at home lately...
When we moved from OH in 2000, most of casual family restaurants were chain ones back there. We were amazed at how many stand-alone (or small, local chain) restaurants we found in MA. I think we went out to eat four times a week practically every week for months after we settled in. :LOL: As our waists got thicker and our wallets got thinner, though, I decided to start cooking again. Now we eat at home most of the time because we don't like most restaurants meals anymore. :LOL:
 
I spend time going through trip advisors lists of restaurants in any given community..most of them are on there with some sort of description..I don't care much about the reviews unless it gets a really low rating...
 
They don't have sponsors. That doesn't mean they can't promote their own products. They moved to a large new location a year or two ago and expanded their staff, so they need to make money somehow. Subscriptions certainly won't cover those costs.

No, the product reviews are not ads. Advertising is required by law to be disclosed as such.

It's an American magazine, so I wouldn't expect it to cater to Canadians.

Having worked for three different magazines over the years, I know a little bit about them. An article does not have to be disclosed as advertising if it promotes a product or brand. We published articles all the time that said good things about our advertisers, and potential advertisers. 100-percent legal.

Subscriptions don't pay the bills. Period. We had to have advertisers to make money, and they expected good ink from us. We did that, as much as we could, without being dishonest or deceptive. It is a balancing act.

I've never seen a Cooks Illustrated magazine, but have watched ATK. I don't know what their financial model is, but giving a positive review of a sponsor's product would not be illegal -- or unusual.

CD
 
When we moved from OH in 2000, most of casual family restaurants were chain ones back there. We were amazed at how many stand-alone (or small, local chain) restaurants we found in MA. I think we went out to eat four times a week practically every week for months after we settled in. :LOL: As our waists got thicker and our wallets got thinner, though, I decided to start cooking again. Now we eat at home most of the time because we don't like most restaurants meals anymore. :LOL:
I'm pretty certain that this is just a phase.. I do know that if/when I gain 5 lbs, it will come to an end.. I enjoy food too much to allow dining out to spoil it with weight gain..


Ross
 
Having worked for three different magazines over the years, I know a little bit about them. An article does not have to be disclosed as advertising if it promotes a product or brand. We published articles all the time that said good things about our advertisers, and potential advertisers. 100-percent legal.

Subscriptions don't pay the bills. Period. We had to have advertisers to make money, and they expected good ink from us. We did that, as much as we could, without being dishonest or deceptive. It is a balancing act.

I've never seen a Cooks Illustrated magazine, but have watched ATK. I don't know what their financial model is, but giving a positive review of a sponsor's product would not be illegal -- or unusual.

CD
Interesting. It seems like that practice would be inconsistent with professional editorial guidelines and FTC regulations, if not the law. I would certainly consider it unethical to promote a product that someone is being paid to promote without disclosing the financial arrangement.

Print and digital advertisements that resemble editorial content should be identified as advertising in compliance with Federal Trade Commission regulations. 73 FTC 1307 (1968) states that when a marketing message “uses the format and has the general appearance of a news feature and/or article for public information which purports [to be] independent, impartial and unbiased . . . the Commission is of the opinion that it will be necessary to clearly and conspicuously disclose it is an advertisement.”

http://www.magazine.org/asme/editorial-guidelines

The magazines are separate from the TV shows and don't accept advertising. The TV shows have sponsors. The company makes money from sales of books, videos, online cooking classes, etc.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. It seems like that practice would be inconsistent with professional editorial guidelines and FTC regulations, if not the law. I would certainly consider it unethical to promote a product that someone is being paid to promote without disclosing the financial arrangement.

Editorial Guidelines | ASME

Thanks for, yet again, quoting the internet to "educate" us all. You didn't spend any time thinking about my post, did you? You just made a mad dash to Google so you could tell me that I'm stupid and you are smart.

Advertorials are ads that look like articles that are provided by the advertiser, and the advertiser pays for the page space for them. They BUY space in the magazine, and provide the content. Those are disclosed as advertising.

When a magazine publishes an article, independently, that is complimentary to an advertiser, it is not the same thing. The magazine provides the content, and they use their unpaid pages to publish it. Like I said before, and you probably skimmed over, It is a balancing act. You want to be complimentary of the product/brand, but you can't lie about it. If Aston Martin wanted us to say their new car can fly, it better be able to fly, or we were not going to say it does. When I wrote an article about a car, EVERY word was 100-percent true, even if it was intentionally complimentary. If a car was a piece of crap, I didn't write an article trashing it, I just didn't write about it at all. We just didn't publish that kind of article.

As for transparency, news and editorial are not the same. If you are reporting the news, you are held to a higher standard than if you are publishing an article that is clearly opinion, like a review of a new car (what we did).

CD
 
Last edited:
I should have known it was a mistake to engage with you :rolleyes: Too bad you're unable to Discuss something with me without belittling and making personal attacks.
 
I should have known it was a mistake to engage with you :rolleyes: Too bad you're unable to Discuss something with me without belittling and making personal attacks.

Not a personal attack. For the most part, I like you. I appreciate MOST of your posts, and if you look back, I have agreed with you more than I have disagreed.

But, there are occasions, albeit rare occasions, where I actually know what I am talking about, not because I read it somewhere, but because I have lived it. I don't see your posts to me on this thread as "engaging." I see them as a spanking, which you do to other forum members, too.

If we were to meet in person, and cook together, we'd probably have a good time. So, this isn't personal. I'm not mad at you, I'm mad at what you sometimes do.

If you are ever in Dallas, let me know, and I'll hook you up with some good places to eat... maybe. :angel: :D

CD
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom