There seems to be a lot of controversy over the rise of the
advertorial. Both sides agree that the audience is skeptical and that the
journalists that write advertorials have a stigma of not being real
journalists. Propionates of the practice say that it is a realistic way to
continue working in a shrinking field and actually make more money then they
did in traditional journalism. The other side argues that you cannot produce
maintain journalistic integrity with a brand image to worry about.
The primary argument on either side seems to boil down to one
of two things: Money and Integrity. Those in that support advertorials point
out that it is a lucrative way to continue working in journalism in a time when
traditional organizations are downsizing. It makes since to go where the money
is especially if they other option just fired you. Those opposed to the
practice say that the money corrupts the story by giving it a desired outcome.
Some
opposed to advertorials or brand journalism say that the articles look too much
like traditional news articles and it is misleading for the audience. With so
much content out there it has become more important for the audience to be wary
of information they receive. Large news organizations have television, print,
web presence and social media. Smaller organizations have any combination of
that list. home bloggers, podcasters and independent journalists are popping up
all the time creating new sources of content. Not all of these sources are
reliable and the audience has gotten better at researching what they are
interested in to verify a story. The majority of the audience today does not
blindly believe a story and are savvy enough to recognize a source.
In the
Columbia Journalism Review article Brandedbut ‘independent’ Media Ann Friedman discusses the economical advantages
for working in Brand Journalism. But that increase in pay comes with a price as
she points out “The biggest annoyance
for me was trying to prove to people- sources, media colleagues, my parents-
that I was still a real ‘journalist.’” It has been argued through many articles
that a stories validity will always be called into question when it has a brand
sponsor. With that pointed out it is important to bring up that most big
traditional media source are brands also. CNN, Fox, New York Times, Wall Street
Journal are all companies with sponsors to appease and goals to meet. Just
because Tumblr and FaceBook have a more focused agenda doesn’t mean that they
can lie in a story.
The
importance of information accuracy is even more crucial then ever. Like Andy Bull points out, “If you say eight out of 10 cats prefer your cat food, you’d
better be right. Because, if you are not, the crowd will tell you very publicly
that you are wrong.” Not only in the audience willing to go out and do the
research to validate your claim, they have the means and drive to set you
straight on several public forums. This goes for both traditional journalism
and advertorials. So the argument that brand journalism breeds inaccurate or
blatantly false stories is irrelevant. As soon as a brand looses credibility
they loose their audience.
What is important in all the back
and forth about the source of a story is really getting lost. Lewis DVorkin says “What’s a Facebook Like really worth? How
often do Twitter followers actually read 140 characters? Not every post on
Forbes.com gets tens of thousands of page views, nor do videos get as many
streams. You need to be timely, relevant and authentic in this new era.” If you
are producing content that is not reaching anyone then it doesn’t matter where
it came from. The whole reason behind journalism, whether traditional or
branded, is to get your information out. If I am going to write a story about
an earthquake in California does it matter is I’m being paid by The New York
Times or Apple Inc. Either way I’m going to be held to a journalistic standard
by my organization and by my audience. And either way I am going to be
scrutinized and challenged by other organizations.
As
Bull Andy discusses in his In Defense Of article
“In modern media, individuals are powerful – as powerful as the message they
have to put across. Small campaigns can go viral on social media if they strike
a chord.” One person can truly bring down or
build up an idea. The independent bloggers and podcasters have a voice that can
gain as much range as any organization. With just a few followers and a strong
enough argument a Tweet can spread like wild fire. One person can call out a
missed fact or skewed statistic and bring to light any spotty journalism in
just a few hours. And again this goes for both sides of the journalistic fence.
As long as the brand
is being honest about it’s involvement in the story and maintains that
transparency the audience can weed out the commercialism out of the story. This
can be applied to the “traditional journalism” organizations as well. If Tumblr needs to put a disclaimer on their
stories pointing out the sponsor then Fox should be held to the same standard.
It could be argued that organizations like Fox keep open records of ownership
and sponsors but the same could be said for advertorials.
On the surface it is
not hard to see the difference between Traditional Journalism and Advertorials
but the deeper you dig the more similar they become. It really has less to do
with where the money comes from to produce the story and more to do with the
individual creating the story. If Ann Friedman is hired by FaceBook to write a
story on a new Presidential Candidate that might have a strong opinion about
FaceBook and Sean Hannity is assigned by Fox to cover the same politician which
story will be more trust worthy. One article will definitely be an advertorial
but does that make it any less bias.
Advertorials if done
right still require the same amount of investigation, research, story boarding
and writing as a traditional editorial. The primary difference is where the
money is coming form and some time in to the product or company providing the
funding for the work. If the journalist has integrity the story will be solid and
trust worth either way. It really should be an argument of solid work
journalism and shoddy, lazy journalism instead of the argument of where the
money is coming from. In Branded but
‘independent’ media Ann Friedman quotes Jessica Bennett saying, “There is a
lot of crap journalism out there, so sometimes it bothers me when people get
all high and mighty about branded content. I really think it’s the story, not
where is comes from.” In the end the story and its accuracy is the thing that
matters that is what the audience really cares about.
Andy Bull points out
that “Here’s another reality: brand journalism
is a fact. It’s here and it’s growing. Brands, organizations, charities,
campaigns and causes have the money to employ journalists, and to use journalistic
techniques, to engage with the public. Increasingly, they are choosing to do
so, while traditional media companies are downsizing.” I think this sums up the
bottom line. Whether you agree with the brand journalists or traditionjournalists it doesn’t change the fact that advertorials are here and a part of
out lives. How we interact with them and how we choose to let them affect us is
the real question.
No comments:
Post a Comment