If you want good branded content, get the editorial staff to do it

Journalism is journalism. Anything else is just PR.

Is this advertorial?

I think there is a big difference between a “journalist” and “editorial staff”. There’s an equally big difference between asking a journalist to sacrifice editorial independence for commercial gain, and having your ‘editorial team’ write advertising copy masquerading as a story.

I’ve made use of both. Freelancer writers and freelance journalists. What surprised me with the work coming back from journalists was how quickly I began to understand the role of the editor.

The work would always be solid, good angles and on deadline always required additional time to be given a good spit and polish, where a freelance commercial writer delivers me a finished piece that requires minor amendments.

Both have their pro’s and con’s but there is a worrying line being walked by some between their roles as graded journalists that freelance for major news outlets and those that simultaneously engage in commercial work. This is compounded when they use their byline visibility with the major news outlets to list themselves with bureaus like Saxton and shopping themselves out as professional speakers, event facilitators and moderators.

There is a level of access and insight granted to such a person on a commercial engagement that they may rarely get if they were seeking a media interview.

So what happens to this information. They may never use it themselves but what gets traded in the community amongst their peers is another question. It’s a grey area and it’s given me the jitters more than once.

Sure, the publishing industry has made great use of non-graded writers to get quality writing at below award. Commercial operators are now in a position to get a high quality of journalists who have been ousted from their roles and are keen to try their hand on the ‘dark side’ of commercial content.

For mine, there is a reason why the world of commercial writing and journalism has been separated. I prefer to keep it that way so the integrity of the profession of journalism (which I admire and respect greatly) is preserved.

Journalists themselves need to be looking at how to apply their trade to the generation of new and independent publications/sites, to give our very limited media landscape more choice and more voice. And if they do decide to cross the floor as it were, they should make that move completely and commit to being one or the other, to protect the value of their craft and their commercial clients as well.

Just another way traditional skills are being exploited and undermined.
Journalists writing advertorials are pretty much selling themselves to the advertiser.

Pushing this unethical view is insulting for balanced, respectable journalists.

This along with the fact that corporations are expecting people with Journalistic writing capabilities, audio and visual editing skills and some sort of tertiary education in not only marketing (*vomit*) but also graphic design for a pathetically low wage is completely disgusting.

We need the unions or what’s left of them to start representing our industry and our exploitation within it.

I come from a time where marketing was for nerds who’s interest was number-crunching and sales, and journalism, advertising (creative side) and graphic design were a creative person’s calling. After all, they are art forms in their own right.

Anyone can number crunch and plan out a strategy if they study it, but artistic skill is something you’re born with, not taught.

Thinking people once had faith in trusted publications and experienced editors to sort the wheat from the chaff, or the subjective from the objective. They could feel well informed and well able to form their own opinions. Sadly, news publishers have failed to invest and promote their skills in this for more than half a century, preferring instead to market readership, reach and value for advertising dollars. The result being that people such as Maxted are failing to appreciate what journalism really should be.

Oh you cynics. Haven’t you seen Very Small Business on the ABC. What could possibly go wrong?

I think (and would hope) that people are still mostly going to want to be sold on an argument, hypothesis or opinion when it comes to public discourse – not a product…

That said, it is also very frustrating how slow on the uptake the publishers have been and how they miss opportunities to be really creative in their relationships with the commercial sector, in ways that don’t compromise everybody in the process.

I was involved in developing a live Q&A session on a specific topic. The audience was a balance of the customers reps, competitors, analysts, users, media etc.

The way the whole piece was put together was completely independent of the marketing team, although it used their budget. I was very clear from the outset that if the marketing agenda corrupted the content, the piece would have no value.

We engaged a really respected ex-journo to work with us on the story arc, following editorial processes to ensure the outcome of the Q&A session was credible.

Once completed and cut, we took it to a major publishing group. Their editors looked at it and agreed, it was quality content.

Typically what would then happen is we would host this content, and develop a marketing campaign to buy whitespace inventory across publishing sites, with the specific aim to drag media readers off the publishing site and get them over to us.

We went in and proposed the opposite. They carry the content and we’d use our spend to drive traffic TO THEM. Makes perfect sense right? After all, editorial had check the material, they were satisfied it was up to standard and had real merit.

Woah now! Said The Publisher. Oh no, we can’t do that. You have to BUY the right to have us carry your content as a sponsorship deal and commit 100% of your advertising spend to us. And we’ll carry it on a sub site that we are relaunching off the back of a failed magazine. That will be eleventy billion dollars please!”

WTF, we said. “Hang on. We’ve spent buckets on this already. Your editors agree its awesome content. You have puny number of paid subscribers . We have a HUGE database that we are prepared to push your way. Oh and by the way, did you see how well that kind of a deal went for Microsoft and The Australian? Really? You want to do that? What gives?”

The whole thing landed in a huge heap. We went on to run our marketing campaign exactly as we would have normally and proceeded to take readers away from them, rather than deliver readers to them.

This is an example of where stupid, old fashioned publishing ideals really got in the way of creating a new model that would have stood up to all the ethical dilemmas. We built the whole programme based on protecting the editorial process and the integrity of it, from the get go. The publishers let commercial greed and their archaic advertising and sponsorship only approach screw it up.

Any commercial jounalist needs to understand the value of advertising revenue. Perhaps it is time the Advertising Managers ran the show instead of restrictive editors.

Most journo’s would have trouble as the truth in advertising laws would prevent them from pursuing their usual line of drivel. Independence? Right.

Many journo’s would have trouble as the truth in advertising laws would prevent them from pursuing their usual drivel.

Professional journalists are still earning good money for their journalism and there are plenty of global and Australian jobs out there.

Journalism is not PR and it never will be

I have never minded writing advertorials. After all, if there aren’t any ads, I’m out of work. But I do mind not being paid extra for it. Copywriters earn a lot more than journalists.

“I’m not talking about advertising copy masquerading as opinion”

Having read the entire article it’s pretty clear that, actually, you are. What you’re proposing is unethical.

Do the mob at your old work, PPR, endorse this kind of approach?

Jackie makes a good point.

Advertisers must become publishers, we’re told, and most of them have done so by producing mountains of sub-standard, dull, light-weight and obviously self-serving “content”.

Umm, don’t you mean “circumventing”, not “circumnavigating”? See, this is why a real journalist and a “citizen reporter” are two different things.

Good God. Save us!
If this not so subtle ‘purchase this and be saved’ invasion continues unchecked, the increase in ‘one size fits most’ ( ‘they what remain will learn to like ze leetle green pills’ ) is absolute and an absolute insult to every reader in every publication written with these subliminal sub agendas.
The way of the world is not pretty pretty folks…

Good writing makes you laugh. Tells you something you didn’t know. Makes you question your opinions. Outrages you. Encourages you to read more of the author’s work.
Most ads (branded content) bore you shitless.

Glad to see that this has stimulated some conversation! Clearly I misused the word ‘circumnavigating’ – as NJK pointed out, it should have read ‘circumventing’ – thanks for the heads up. We are just about to hire our first sub-editor and obviously not before time. Luckily, there are plenty to choose from. I take issue with ‘Bill Posters’ comment that what I propose is “unethical” – how is it unethical when the sponsored content is clearly labelled as such? I agree with Paul Eveleigh’s claim that most branded content is woeful. That’s the point – if you are going to do it, do it well – whether it’s sponsored or not. That way, it’s possible to run a successful publishing business, offering good content and to pay the people who create it.