I saw an interesting (and bold) article in the latest issue of First Option, a new weekly magazine on media, advertising, and marketing. It’s called ‘Will customised content rule media?’ (Click Page 21)

‘Do you trust your newspaper or TV channel to provide you with news and information that is credible, authentic and unbiased?’…the article started. ‘Media brands are not built overnight but over a period of time and the trust once given by readers is not generally negotiated……(but) media cannot exist on subscription alone. And here’s where advertising comes in. As long as the media brand puts out content that is credible, the relationship between the media, the advertiser and the reader remains stable. The trust the reader vests in the media-brand is automatically transferred to the advertised brands. However, as advertising begins to intrude into editorial space and the fine line between content and advertising gets blurred, that’s when the relationship goes awry.’

‘The Times of India has often been charged of ushering in this new trend of disguising advertising material as editorial content for a price. ….Paid for content seems to have become the norm on TV channels as well.’

I think I have to agree that the trend is there, quite to an extent, apparent to many in the media, advertising and PR circles. I have also earlier written a post about how advertising professionals are starting to negotiate with media houses for editorial space as part of their advertising packages.

As PR professionals, we run after journalists to get stories for our clients done. However, we also have seen marketing teams of TV channels approaching us for tie-ups between our clients and their publications for sponsoring series of shows where we get to decide the content primarily. How does this work? Let’s say suppose I’m handling a company in a particular industry. Then according to this media partnership, the TV channel will run a series of shows on issues facing the industry. Our client spokespersons get to chair and talk in those shows. There can be industry summits, discussions, studio interviews organized where in we get to highlight our client’s key messages prominently. What do we have to offer? Sponsor the whole series of programmes.

We are no longer talking about offering a bottle of wine to a friendly journalist to get a good story as in the old days. We are today talking about officially discussing and negotiating editorial content space.

How does this affect the PR profession? Should we adapt to this new norm or stay away from it? Here is an old post by Richard Edelman in which he said …’we are in a professional services business with an inviolable code of ethics. We are paid for our time and our counsel, not for specific number of insertions in the media. We have a responsibility to tell the truth, to foster dialogue and to reveal funding sources. We cannot tolerate any arrangement that envisages payment for placement. To do otherwise completely undermines the essence of our position as honest advocate and eliminates the separation of church and state for the media. Why bother reading the editorial copy if it is purchased in the same way as the advertising?’

I agree, however much I want get into one of these partnerships and get loads of primetime coverage for my clients. To me, PR is about achieving acknowledgment from an unbiased and independent media editorial about the achievement and messages of our clients. The sanctity of the media editorial space and our ability to influence it through our creative messaging is what gives credibility to our profession. The moment we venture into buying that editorial space, we fail to respect the very foundation of the PR profession, and we become advertisers.

It’s not only us who stand to lose from this trend. It’s the media that stands to lose more. Like First Option concluded, when you tinker with the credibility factor of content you lose the link to the reader. And ultimately it’s the reader who is the queen.

Popularity: 3% [?]