I have a viscerally negative reaction to sponsored-content/native advertising media business models, so I'm not judging this objectively, but I think it's a little disingenuous to say that you "got a pretty sweet writeup" from your own parent company. 

Also, while the piece itself straightforwardly mentions the ownership and spon-con  issues, it's not exactly reassuring that something so unabashedly puffy ("Capturing the attention of hard-won 18- to 35-year-olds doesn’t figure to be easy, but armed with an elegant and hefty moniker in Duluth.com, Dixon sounds capable of filling in the rest") appeared under the DNT nameplate. 

I am wondering how Duluth.com will disclose content sponsorship; looking through pieces up on site this morning, I'm not seeing any paid content disclosure statements (like "sponsored" badges on Buzzfeed). Are these coming, or should we just assume that there's a paid relationship behind all content?

I know sustainable models in media are hard to come by/non-existent, so I don't want to sound entirely negative; if you're able to use the opportunity to tell unique and useful stories, you'll have this 18-35 year old's eyeballs  (with Ad-Blocker disabled!)