Making journalists write native ads is a ‘mistake’ Mandarin editor warns publishers

Comercial news outlets can not survive without advertising. Nor can they survive without independent quallity content. We have all seen what happens to quality content when radio announcers become voices for advertisers.

We do employ journalist to create branded content; it’s just that our perm staff or news desk journos don’t do it. Also we’re always clear with the reader who is in control, us as the publisher or the brand as our client.

Also I still assert that news.com.au is very much NOT the same set up as The Guardian. Our editors report only into The Scott Trust who ensure their editorial independence in perpetuity. Reid ultimate reports into Murdoch and the stock market. Very different.

Hmm, lots of noble integrity, but I doubt Mama Mia, Guardian Australia or The Mandarin make much, or even any money. Integrity is no good if it takes you out of business.

It is astonishing that people think that the question is about whether journalists are “comfortable” writing ads. It’s the readers you have to worry about and I for one think Fairfax especially is totally stupid for even allowing this to be considered. To put it simply: to market your product as “independent, always” when the opposite is true is a conscious act of commercial suicide.

how is this any different to advertorials that run in magazines? This is an old selling option that’s just been given a new name.

As someone else mentioned this is a fancy new name to give legitimacy to advertorial, and the main thing is that just like the cash for comment scandal on the radio, if something is paid for by a company then it can’t be presented as journalism in any form because it isn’t.
That’s not to say journalists can’t write the content, but for a variety of reasons it needs to be a very distinct form of content. It shouldn’t get a byline referring to the writer or the byline should read sponsored/paid for by ‘company name/individual’.

I mean if you can’t get journalists to do legitimate reviews of your product or services or any relevant events through traditional means and need to pay for what you want said, to be said, you probably have a problem already.

“independent, always”

As always, flip the msg to reveal a brand’s greatest weakness.

There was a time when media companies employed journalists to produce the editor. The also employed other journalists who produced the advertorials. But they never let them swap jobs. It is very noticeable many of the magazine which have mixed the jobs up have lost circulation as their credibility has vanished.

Sorry that should have read
There was a time when media companies employed journalists to produce the editorial content. They also employed other journalists who produced the advertorials. But they never let them swap jobs. It is very noticeable many of the magazine which have mixed the jobs up have lost circulation as their credibility has vanished.

“Native Advertising” Fck there are so many hipsters these days coining new terms for things that already exist: Advertorial’s were being penned in newspapers decades ago.

There has always been a fine line between credibility and outright, blatant greed, lies and utter BS. Many would argue that the promotion of some products, blatantly, is fine, (such as fruit and veg), where as others, (such as processed and fast foods) is not.

Publishers decide what fits into their publications and will assess and set guidelines for their sales and editorial teams (they should do). Some publishers are far more ethical than others. Above the publishing houses we have bodies and associations and of course ‘law’ that will ban outright, particular products from being spruiked, such as tobacco.

Regulation should not be influenced by corporate, religion or government, say some. (Again, it surely depends on the ethical view point of the influencing power though, right?)

Look back at the Dutch East India and then of course the eventually, mightier; East India Company. Well they plied their trade by influencing, espionage, doing shady deals and if that didn’t work then war it was and NOTHING has changed 200 odd years later. (Those oil fields in Iraq need to keep flowing to the West guys, so lets make sure everybody agrees that these ISIS folk’s should be bombed). ISIS aside, could their be folks in Iraq who look at their own country and say; “we should all be pretty wealthy, because we sit on all of this oil?” (Do get angry and fight back / lash out…) – Of course they do. Although the exploration of our iron ore and coal and the billions flowing to fat slobs like Palmer and Reinhardt, whilst many of our indigenous are impoverished could be compared as a similarity to crowds of refugees in the middle east…

Okay, so bringing this back to advertorials… I studied journalism (you wouldn’t have thought it by my sentence construction), however I did. I was taught to only ever trust primary evidence. I apply this to every scenario, in work, in play and in life in general. You get to know who isn’t full of BS and you can then generally trust some secondary evidence, however only from a few credible sources and after intense scrutiny first. The issues we have is that government, religion and corporates prosper most from the sheep, the vulnerable, the less educated, the impoverished. Our industry is doing a lot of the manipulation for all three of these groups. Conflicts, past, present and future are generally around these three groups and how they can maintain a stranglehold on their assets / power… Nothing has changed.

Some people still believe in God ffs, thus proving that people can be manipulated in 2014, just like they were centuries ago. It is amazing isn’t it!

Naked advertising is a buzzword, add it along with all the other words, to your bullshit bingo card and keep manipulating (we have been doing so for centuries and for clients too: corporations, religions and governments).