evilpants. Many commenters thought it should be promoted to its own post, and we always listen to the very constructive feedback offered by our readers.
By: evilpants
Good grief, I just read the page on their site directed at new advertisers:
Advertise on TWiT.tv
TWiT has been an ad-supported network for almost ten years and we have helped hundreds of companies grow their brands and increase their customer base by educating our audience about their products and services through ads on TWiT.tv. Our advertisers are a mix of start-ups, established brands, and those that we helped become established brands.
TWiT reaches a highly-engaged, tech-savvy audience as one of the world’s largest Internet broadcasters of live and on demand technology shows. In 2012 we established our own sales team because we wanted to work directly with our advertisers on super-serving our audience. Our sales team currently has 65% of sales in-house and is led by our CEO Lisa Laporte who heavily vets potential advertisers before allowing them on our network. Our in-house sales team has an in depth knowledge of our shows, direct access to our hosts, and works closely with our advertisers to create the best ads for our audience.
We are always interested in new advertisers who have products and services that will directly benefit our audience. If you are interested in advertising on the TWiT network then email advertising@twit.tv
There really is no one at TWIT who has any idea how to write marketing copy, and no one who knows how to address marketing people.
Even this sentence’s construction is sloppy and lazy:
Our advertisers are a mix of start-ups, established brands, and those that we helped become established brands.
Just look at that. They have three types of advertisers: 1) start-ups, 2) established brands, and…. um, 3) established brands. That’s a really stupid way of writing. If you know how to write English, and if you’re aiming to show that you understand what you’re saying, you’d say something like “Our advertisers are a mix of start-ups and established brands. Many of those have become established brands thanks to their partnership with TWIT.”
It’s only a small point, but I guess I’m saying, these people can’t even get a basic piece of marketing spiel right. It’s not just that sentence, it’s the whole thing. It’s written by someone who thinks they know how to write, but clearly doesn’t.
And the fact that once again they felt the need to say “our sales team… is led by our CEO Lisa Laporte” pretty much tells you who wrote the page.
Finally, they make a point of saying that Lisa Laporte “heavily vets” potential advertisers. For what? Ethical reasons? Equality reasons? Diversity reasons? They don’t bother saying. It ends up sounding like TWIT is a smarmy spoiled child. If they’re bothered to explain what the purpose of the vetting is, it would make it a positive thing – but the fact that they don’t, makes it a really negative thing.
What advertiser would want to be put through a “heavy vetting” process? Oh please, please let us advertise with you 🙁