Why journalists need to embrace brand journalism
After a spate of criticism around brand journalism Tracey Fitgerald argues journalists need to be part of the solution, not the problem.
Having just returned from a week working on a client project in Nepal, I cannot explain how frustrating is to read articles by fellow writers and journalists who are quick to criticise the term ‘brand journalism’ and pick holes in what they deem to be a contradictory term.
Once such article I read recently referred to a brand journalist role as “diluting what the term ‘journalist’ means”. The author even went so far as to question the integrity of anyone interested in this ‘ridiculous oxymoron’.
What I see here is far too much attention on the definition and zero focus on the solution – which is that journalists could actually help shape this industry into something that creates a really positive impact.
I think you are confusing “journalism” with PR.
“If you deem journalism as being the practice of gathering and reporting information and news across a platform to a particular audience, then the only real difference is the platform.”
herein, i think lies the problem. i deem journalism as being the practice of INDEPENDENTLY gathering and reporting information across a particular platform…”
of course our non-branded journalists struggle with this as well – the problem of bias is ever present – but at least in actual journalism this ideal is acknowledged as something that we should strive for. in “branded journalism”, which i do think is an oxymoron, the ideal of independence and the search for objectivity do not exist. you are writing to a brief. you are writing copy to promote your client and make them look good. there is no room for criticism or inconvenient facts – if such inconveniences exist, they simply get cut client-side on the final edit.
any journalist who begins working for brands, if they are honest with themselves, must acknowledge that they are not journalists anymore but copywriters. a fine career to be sure, but it is advertising, not journalism. it’s a crucial distinction.
“My client (who admittedly works in the field of firefighting and firefighting products) felt an affinity to the brigade in Kathmandu and wanted to bring me and a videographer to Nepal to implement brand journalism techniques…”
this is advertising, plain and simple. it’s disingenuous to say otherwise. and this conflation of the terms, which is very common, is only ever a one-way street. i don’t know any journalists who position themselves as advertisers to gain credibility, it’s always the other way around.
thanks for your contribution tracey and i welcome a response to the points raised here if you are inclined to give one.
I think it’s fantastic that Mumbrella is syndicating from The Onion, but it should make that clearer to avoid confusion.
you say brand journalism doesn’t mean waving goodbye to journalistic integrity and making businesses more accountable but then proceed to undermine your own arguments by talking about your “client”.
The example you gave implies a direct commercial relationship. What you call “stories” some may call “sale pitches”.
How do you think a “brand journalist” can make a company more accountable when that company believes it has the commercial final say on what you write. Your “editor” is not in the newsroom: it’s in the client’s head office.
Thanks for the comment 1225. All very valid points and things I’ve certainly come across before when discussing this topic.
What I’m trying to discover is where journalistic practices can fit in terms of making brands more accountable for what they produce and how these practices can help the worthy in their industry who otherwise wouldn’t have a voice.
I feel that there’s an opportunity for brands (at least socially conscious ones) to help give others in their industry a voice or at least shed light on areas of their industry that need work.
You raised a good point about advertising… I see a difference in that the brief isn’t necessarily being led by the client. The client doesn’t say ‘we need to achieve XYZ, here’s the brief’… this is about journalists demonstrating to those in a position of power how they can move away from direct sales messages and do something more meaningful. The ‘brief’ in that sense is created by the brand journalist who identifies the story and the key issues. This is pie in the sky thinking at the moment but with a huge push from journalists we could make brands more accountable for what they say and actually add value to the community.
I’m absolutely on the side of the journalist. I don’t want to see the industry change in a way that dilutes the core value of a story or blur the lines between stories and sales (which is a point Baffled raised – thanks). But I’m aware that the industry is changing (as I see both sides of it) and I would love this change led by journalists who could be pivotal and potentially even lead a new wave of corporate social responsibility. At the moment I see more input from marketers and I think that’s why journalists are left feeling anxious and confused.
When I was away my aim was to try and figure out how this could happen… how it could be independent and led from the journalists end. I do see an opportunity. I know it needs polishing but I see something that could be good for journos. But without their input and education it will become more of a marketing play and the true stories may become sales.
I think you make a very valid point. Journalism is changing whether we like it or not. Just the way marketing has also seen dramatic changes due to the influence of social media. Brand journalism will continue to grow. Journalists can ignore it, or they can shape this change.
But Tracy, it IS a marketing play. The true stories ARE becoming sales. That’s what the client wants. It can never be “independent and led from the journalist’s end” when the journalist is being paid by a non-independent source who assumes that dollars paid means they get to control the narrative.
I find your entire premise incredibly naive, and while I understand that you want to be seen as a “proper” journalist, it’s a bit like McDonalds calling themselves a restaurant, isn’t it?
Can someone direct me to an article written by a brand-funded “journalist” that is negative about the brand funding the “journalist”?
I guess marketers have to become even more devious at spinning via branded everything as consumers slowly wise up to traditional BS.
Can’t wait till my favourite paper towel brand devises its own hilarious sitcom and lifestyle website/blog.Oh joy.
Consumers will wise up to that too eventually.
Please, Mumbrella, can you let the content mob find another soapbox to stand on? They’ve had a fair chance to spruik their dubious wares.
Good luck to Tracey and ‘Brandalism’, though I found the UK namesake far more engaging:
http://www.brandalism.org.uk
Thoughtful piece Tracy
But to our journalist friends (and students) out there, let’s just stop pretending that you’re reporting independently and free of influence, ok?
Journos often have a mistaken idea that they’re responding to a higher calling, as self-appointed guardians of the public good.
Yet their work is inherently inaccurate and often biaised, tainted by their own life experience (or lack thereof) and too frequently, their political viewpoint.
Journalists lost the trust of the public soon after the marketing profession.
Both occupations are selling something; marketers are just more honest about it.
Journalists are delivering eyeballs to their publisher, who monetises them with subs and/or ads.
It’s a business like any other.
Journalism concerns itself with disclosure devoid of the influence of vested interests. Pure journalistic judgement has nothing to do with brands, commercial stakes and marketing. It’s a pity so much so-called journalism in contemporary media dilutes this judgement.
Ah, the hallowed turf of ‘journalism’. How dare the PR industry impose itself!
How much contemporary journalism is completely devoid of commercial interest? Very little I would suggest.
From the MEAA Code of ethics:
Standard number 6:
“Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.”
Brand Journalism is a clear breach of professional ethical standards. Ero a brand journalist is not a journalist – though it uses some of the same techniques.
In fact we’ve had a another term for people who use jounralism techniques in service of other interests. Its called PR.
Nothing wrong with being a PR professional – just don’t call it journalism.
where’s in the code of ethics does it say:
“Do not allow your personal political beliefs, personal perspectives, limited life experience or the demands of your publisher to attract readers undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence”
Wow.
I wander what the MEAA code of ethics tastes like?
Traditional media is changing – and has been for quite some time – and so is the role of journalists in it. It’s up to journalists what they do and don’t embrace.
The article suggests that journalists shape the change, rather than hand it over to their employers: “Journalists need to take charge of the changes happening within the industry and play an active role when it comes to educating brands on how journalistic practices can be applied to what they do.”
I’m surprised at the level of outrage shown towards the term ‘brand journalism’. The citing of the MEAA code of ethics, the use of the term “integrity” and the like seem lost on when just this week three of our major newspapers thought it acceptable to mock and sensationalise the horrific murder of Mayang Prasetyo. On the front page, no less.
Like it or not, media is changing, and brand journalism is part of it. See Fairfax launching a content marketing division and the New York Times features branded content.
Branded journo= hired hack