Speaking of ethics in sponsored content...
An article today in Forbes on ethics in sponsored content brought back memories of our recent discussions regarding UBM Tech's methodology changes and the larger discussion about whether corporations can be expected to deliver ethical content.
The article points out that Edelman has posted their own set of ethics regarding sponsored content that remarkably mirrors Footwasher Media's position: That it isn't PR or advertising. It's something different from what most corporate advocates practice and it must be, by nature, ethical or it loses all value.
Many people in the news business have taken ethical standards for granted. They seem to believe that they are intertwined with the genesis of journalism itself. It isn't true. The news business, supported by advertising began in the 1700s with Benjamin Franklin's founding of the Pennsylvania Gazette, but the separation of advertising from editorial did not appear until the mid 20th century, and the codified standard of ethics for journalists did not appear until 1973 (I know because I helped write them). Even today, however, you would be hard pressed to find a journalist who knows what those standards are or even applies them in full.
We are entering a new age in journalism and communications. It is different from what it was 50 years previous. I imagine it will look different from now in another 50 years. Ethics will arise from the practice as an evolutionary process, no matter what anyone else thinks.
Independent agencies provide important and valuable services to their clients.
ReplyDeleteEthics and efficacy both suggest that a company that operates a media outlet cannot (or should not) perform these services. An agency is a key part of a client’s marketing team - advocating for them versus their competitors, working to get them the best possible deals on their paid placements, assuring that their messages get the widest possible exposure across media outlets, participating in and protecting the confidentiality of the client’s strategic marketing programs.
An agency owned by a media outlet is compromised on just about all of these. Can they really advocate for both parties in a highly competitive market? Will they really work to get their clients the best deals on paid media placements - against their own sales team? Will they really work hard to get exposure for their clients in publications and media outlets that compete with their own?
I think any company should consider these points carefully before dropping independent agencies in favor of this kind of outlet-owned agency service. I think smart companies will decide that the compromises clearly outweigh any perceived benefits.
I tend to agree with you on this, Kevin. Only time will tell if this model works effectively, but in the past few months I've seen some enormous cracks forming.
ReplyDelete