Imagine you're trying to sell a bundle of Mac applications that includes Parallels. It's an obviously appealing deal for anyone in the market for Windows virtualization, since the bundle is priced below the retail cost of Parallels alone. Might you choose to place a teensy promotion of your bundle someplace that would-be virtualization customers would see it? Someplace, I dunno, associated with a Parallels alternative? Hey, waitasec -- you've got this handy site where people come to see updated and reviewed Mac software... now you've got something going!Sorry, MacUpdate Promo team, but this kind of internal cross-promotion strikes me as being more than a little disingenuous, especially in the wake of a recent VMware update that is bound to drive readers to the VMware page. Lose the sales pitch and regain some editorial dignity.
Update: To clarify for our commenters, I couldn't care less if MacUpdate advertises the bundle at the top of every page on the site (as they do), including the VMware page. The issue here, however, is the specific contextual ad right next to the update listing for VMware (and ONLY there). You can call it valuable consumer information for someone who might otherwise purchase VMware at full price; I call it advertising/promotional interference with the editorial content of the site. Having it say "Editor Note" implies that the editors of MacUpdate judge the value and worth of applications by whether or not they choose to participate in a promotional bundle; so much for editorial judgement and independence. Tomato, tomahto.
Thanks to J. Carlos de Pinho for the heads-up.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
4-25-2008 @ 3:48PM
mentalsticks said...
And why would MacUpdate have to be objective? They are a website that sells software. They'd rather sell their own software. Actually it's a good thing if people realise that that kind of website is far from objective.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:11PM
Michael Rose said...
Technically, 'mupromo.com' is the site that sells software -- macupdate.com is nominally a software listing and review site. If the listings, reviews and star rankings for applications don't reflect user or editorial opinions, but rather the sales motivations of the bundle team, that's a problem for me.
Back in the dead-trees-smeared-with-grease publishing world where I used to make a living, we called this a "church and state" problem. Either your editorial content is independent of your advertising sales, or it's not.
Having a big banner on top of the page -- in fact, on top of every page at macupdate.com -- advertising the bundle is OK. Having a targeted, specific "don't buy that, buy this" link on the VMware Fusion listings page is a bit over the line.
4-25-2008 @ 4:03PM
Roll said...
I personally don't think they did anything wrong.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:06PM
Spartan 1017 said...
I have to agree, my first thought was this wasn't fair play by macupdate, but as the 1st poster comments, who said they were ever meant to be objective in the first place..
For MU, i say this shows us consumers their true colors and apparent agenda.. its made me think different of them for sure..
IMHO, shame on you MU...
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 7:49PM
Hawkman said...
Agreed, to some extent. It certainly damages their reputation (or should).
These sites are operating just on the shady side of squeaky clean anyway; essentially they're using developers' stuff, usually without asking permission, in order to sell advertisements for personal profit. Screwing a particular developer in order to sell their own stuff isn't actually that different, when you think about it.
I'm not some freetard completely against people making money, but you've gotta do it in a morally responsible way.
4-25-2008 @ 4:08PM
Comrade_Penguin said...
As said above. Also surely it is a good thing they're pointing out a competing piece of software with similar specifications can be had cheaper along with other software?
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 8:09PM
Bucky Slingshot said...
Actually, what they are not pointing out is that VMware Fusion is by far the superior product. What they also don't point out is that if you are a student or staff of an educational institution, you can buy VMware for only $39. It's really a much better deal than the bundle.
That's why Parallels are trying to offload their product with the bundle - because it's inferior, and they priced it out of the market. At normal prices it's significantly more expensive than VMware, for the worse product (with terrible after-sales support). The only reason that Parallels ever sold well, was that it was on the market first.
I'd worry more about investing in a product that may have little future and has such poor support than saving a few bucks.
The big problem with MacUpdate, though, is that they are pretending an advertisement is an "Editor's Note."
4-25-2008 @ 4:09PM
peter said...
Using the site they own to promote something they're selling in a bundle? Egads!!! Seems like a savvy move to me. Folks can make their own decisions on software based on factors they are interested in, including price...
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:19PM
Nate said...
... So they posted a promotion for their bundle on their own site where they also advertise a would-be competitor? Good for them!
Seriously... there is nothing wrong with this.
-Nate
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:23PM
Ian said...
Huh. I was going to buy VMware Fusion, but I saw this article and bought the mac update bundle instead!
Thanks!
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 9:42PM
Tom said...
I've tried both, and Fusion is just worlds better. I bought the MUPromo bundle, but I still prefer fusion. So, owning both Parallels and Fusion should give me a pretty good perspective on this: fusion rules over parallels.
Got it?
4-25-2008 @ 4:23PM
Blaktornado said...
I agree with Michael. That's a bit out of order.
It's deliberately damaging another company for one's own gain.
Any average person would just go "Oh look, I can get this for cheaper", buy the bundle and never look at VMware again.
it's foul play; harnessing money from someone else's product.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:25PM
Nate said...
But it comes down to simple ownership of the site and space. I see many posts on Tuaw linking to Engadget posts... Shared advertising revenue?
Don't get me wrong... I'm glad Tuaw covers everything Mac including Engadget posts but seriously... if you own a network of sites... why not cross post promotions?
-Nate
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:31PM
finlay said...
ahh, this is bad form on macupdates part. justify it how you want...or don't :)
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:34PM
Jacques Lema said...
Some people tend to see evil everywhere.
I am one of them. For example I suspect that this is totally faked indignation in order to promote said mupromo bundle.
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:35PM
Dalton said...
There is nothing wrong with this, MacUpdate owns the site, they can do whatever they want. When I do a search for Parallels on Google, what comes up? An ad for VMWare that says "Buy VMWare instead". Should Google stop displaying these kinds of ads too?
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:40PM
Roll said...
I agree with you too. They are just stating the obvious when they say (Fusion's Competitor).
4-25-2008 @ 4:44PM
Roll said...
Something else to ponder... would every one feel better if MacUpdate paid themselves to advertise? Sound's silly.
4-25-2008 @ 4:44PM
LD said...
This is a retarded "article"
There is nothing wrong with advertising. Certainly not when it's for your benefit on your website.
It in no way takes any credibility away from them any more than their other advertisers take credibility from them.
That's ridiculous.
Reply
4-25-2008 @ 4:50PM
The Jerk said...
I find nothing wrong with this either. The average person cares more about a deal than brand loyalty. MY is just letting consumers know there is a deal on similar software. If my mom bought VMware and then later found out the same site was selling virtualisation software cheaper, she'd be pretty upset. Brick and Mortars do this all the time with signs and sales reps. There are no sales reps online, so they post a handy little note about it. Man, you complainers are so picky!!!
Reply