> I can't think of the last time I saw someone say anything positive about corporate content.
A few obvious ones would be: Apple events, anything related to OpenAI or SpaceX.
When I look at influencers, especially those who are selling supplements (Jones, Rogan, Huberman et al.), I see that much of their overall content is purely business-driven, yet people engage with the content and recommend it to others quite willingly.
'Earned' content partnerships (and access journalism) might not be as obvious, but on the sending end it sometimes does get treated as part of corporate content marketing. An example off the top of my head here could be a rather old but influential megapost about Neuralink on Wait But Why – something I'd read start to finish and enjoyed.
All of that said, I think these proposals to have content partnerships and 'brand exposure' without full transparency (as OpenAI is anything but open and transparent about its algorithms) is just another creeping tentacle of sighs the tragedy of the commons.
Word is a tool, and any tool we use changes the way we see the world and interact with it. Hammer –> nails and all that.
I'd say the article missed the mark by focusing on features, especially spellcheck/autocorrect.
It's like some sort of cognitive blindness: I mean, the article has a photo with typists at the office and yet it competely ignores the transformation that an engine/platform – a computer – with a tool – a word processor – had on the way language is used in business, leisure, creative and, of course, language work (anything from print or editing to business memos).
A hammer can have a flavor, but it's still a hammer. This article focuses on the objectionable and weak flavor of MS Word while ignoring the wider implications of a digital word processor.
A few obvious ones would be: Apple events, anything related to OpenAI or SpaceX.
When I look at influencers, especially those who are selling supplements (Jones, Rogan, Huberman et al.), I see that much of their overall content is purely business-driven, yet people engage with the content and recommend it to others quite willingly.
'Earned' content partnerships (and access journalism) might not be as obvious, but on the sending end it sometimes does get treated as part of corporate content marketing. An example off the top of my head here could be a rather old but influential megapost about Neuralink on Wait But Why – something I'd read start to finish and enjoyed.
All of that said, I think these proposals to have content partnerships and 'brand exposure' without full transparency (as OpenAI is anything but open and transparent about its algorithms) is just another creeping tentacle of sighs the tragedy of the commons.