The Dark Side of the Content Revolution

3535350591_68fa212be7_mA few years ago, an excellent article appeared in a major industry publication that one of our clients advertises in regularly. The article not only mentioned our client’s flagship product but it did so favorably, even comparing it positively to competitive products. Grateful for the positive coverage and the high quality of the article, we worked with the publication to develop a client-specific reprint of the piece, which in turn was distributed at a major trade show.

One of our client’s key competitors saw this reprint at that trade show and became infuriated. Why, you may ask? As it happened, the article had been written by a nurse whom the competitor had paid. It was essentially, they felt, their intellectual property, and the fact that the publication had allowed our client to not only reprint the piece but to alter it flummoxed the competitive company. Unfortunately for the company in question, they had not properly divulged that the content was paid content, and thus they did not really have a leg to stand on. In an effort to make their “content” more readily accessible to a broad audience, they had sacrificed their strong claim to what they felt was their intellectual property.

All of this happened in regards to an article that appeared in print. Now, the world of content has become even more complex. Consider the case of The Atlantic, a publication, now available digitally as well as in print, whose existence spans longer than a century. On January 14, 2013, as Slate.com reported, The Atlantic’s homepage consisted, above the fold, of three things. Two of them were articles about scientology. The third item, with a small “sponsored content” label, was a very positive report on how Scientology had fared in 2012. Who sponsored that content? The Church of Scientology. The Poynter Institute, “a school that exists to ensure that our communities have access to excellent journalism,” notes some of the ethical dilemmas this editorial decision raised, including how the comments on the sponsored content were handled.

Beyond the written word, sponsored content can also become a hairy issue on something as seemingly straightforward as a Google Hangout. In the July 23rd edition of On the Media, co-host Bob Garfield describes how he was asked to participate in a panel for HuffPostLive regarding how luxury car companies are performing in terms of effectively reaching their audiences. Only after the show had started was Garfield informed that the segment was being sponsored by Cadillac and that one of Cadillac’s representatives was also on the panel. Garfield, as he notes in his show, was disgusted.

The marketing world is certainly abuzz with “content marketing” these days, but very significant ethical questions are being left unanswered in the vacuum of useless advice like, “Write stories that are awesome.” Steve Rubel of Edelman Digital, who appears on the previously referenced On the Media segment, notes that while companies want to benefit from offering content in the correct context, publishers also know that if you highlight that the content was paid for, people may not be as likely to click. One might suggest that sponsored content or “native advertising” as it is sometimes called, is almost like starting a blog post with a giant “buy from us now” banner ad.

Rubel and Garfield also debate other ethical questions where sponsored content is concerned. Part of what people found troubling about the Atlantic’s sponsored content is that it seemed to meld seamlessly with regular editorial content, making it difficult to discern what was real content and what was not. We are seeing this in the print world as well, where advertisements are in some cases increasingly mimicking the look of that publication’s editorial. Additionally, there are now opportunities to customize e-newsletters using a publication’s masthead and email database (the publications deploy these so advertisers do not have access to the entire circulation). Are these customized e-newsletters in a way a betrayal of those who opted in for a specific kind of content?

We do not have any solutions for these dilemmas as we write this. Positioned as we are as a liaison between our clients (advertisers) and publishers, we can see the pros and cons of sponsored content from both sides. We are also acutely aware that many companies no longer believe traditional advertising works, and we know many publishers are struggling to remain in business. On the surface, sponsored content seems like a win-win for all parties. However, there are clearly key questions that are simply not getting enough attention. It is time to start getting down to the nitty gritty where “content marketing” is concerned. Don’t you think?

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34009028@N04/3535350591/ via Creative Commons


10 comments on “The Dark Side of the Content Revolution

  1. Great questions and analysis, Margie. Right there with you on this – without disclosing the content is sponsored up front, it feels like a bait and switch. But, I think about the times I see “advertorial” or “sponsored content” in a print magazine, I typically flip past it.

    I’m just wondering aloud, but this makes me think of how much of a need there is for good media relations / PR. If you can do remarkable things at your company and create stories worth talking about, maybe you wouldn’t need to sponsor content. However, that certainly doesn’t solve the problem for publishers who need dollars.

    • The other problem with just hosting your own stories is that if companies work together with publications, they can take advantage of that publication’s built-in audience. That’s one of the great advantages of sending an e-blast to a publication’s audience – those people have already opted-in and are expecting emails (one assumes). These days, with all of the “noise” online, it will take awhile for companies to get their blogs or other content established and well-read.

  2. Isn’t it sad that the only way companies can cram more advertising down our throats is to hide it and play dumb about it? Just by calling it “sponsored content” they’re obfuscating its intent. I’m pretty sure the average person doesn’t understand what that is. It’s like saying Coca Cola sponsors Nascar. It sounds very friendly but in the end, call it what it is: an ad.

    • I think David Ogilvy would agree with you. He felt that the best way to get an ad read was to make it look like a publication’s editorial. There is really not much new about this “content marketing” issue except for some of the tools and platforms we are talking about.

  3. The concept that has been bothering me for a while isn’t “content marketing” so much as it is “brand journalism,” which I think is what you’re talking about here. Maybe they’re the same thing. Maybe they’re similar. I don’t know.

    But the idea that a company can credibly and convincingly write with full disclosure of who they are in an unbiased fashion about itself or its industry is somewhat perplexing. Is it possible for a brand to be journalistic? In other words, is it possible for a company to be unbiased in covering an issue about which it has a vested interest?

    Isn’t there inherent bias in that concept that wouldn’t be present in a third party journalist? Can such content really gain the trust of readers? I’m not so sure…

    • Our opinion on this is that you just need to be transparent from the start. We have never proclaimed that this blog was anything other than our agency blog, but 90% of the time (we hope) our information is useful but not promotional. However, you are always aware that you are at a company blog. Other companies can accomplish this as well. It’s important to have a content strategy so that you don’t surprise people, for example, by all of a sudden starting to promote a product or service in the middle of completely objective information. It takes more front-end thought, I feel, than what companies are currently dedicating to the “content marketing” thing.

  4. I was thinking about this in regards to the whole influencers should be paid argument. There’s always a price to pay for these kinds of things, and getting paid also means losing credibility. So it is with mastheads (Atlantic), too.

  5. Sponsored content is definitely tricky. On one hand, it is a way to get exposure. On the other, it loses credibility when people discover it is sponsored and might not be the best way to build trust – the cornerstone of building customer relationships.

  6. […] too long ago, we wrote an article wondering about the potential dark side of the “content marketing” revolution. Based on insights from, among others, media expert Bob Garfield, we discussed in that post whether […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: