Trustworthy content is in the best interests of corporations... and good for professional journalists
It’s time to wrap up this series on truth and trust in content. Over the past few posts I’ve talked about how truth appears differently to people, based on their personal perspective, and to report truth you need to view it from multiple angles. I’ve also showed how modern media lacks the resources to gather that information adequately and how corporations, once dedicated to limiting that access through their marketing, now find it in their best interest to increase the flow of trusted information.
Let me set the table.
Content marketing is not SEO. Tara Meehan’s post in iMedia Connection demonstrated how companies measure social on SEO metrics of clicks and unique visitors in the form of likes and followers, neither of which has the value they did 5 years ago. This decreased value in SEO metrics is exacerbated by companies buying fake followers and B2B publishers paying people to comment and like content to boost their engagement. This approach ultimately fails after a certain period of growth because those companies don’t provide anything worth reading.
Trust thrives in social media. Brian Solis wrote recently that trust is the the most important issue in content development but corporations that focus on search to bring people to websites, fail to engender trust because people don’t trust corporate website content. People trust people they know so that’s who they go to first. Search comes after social now and social is all about content.
Tech journalism isn’t what it used to be. Tom Foremski wrote that tech journalism has devolved to be a practice of product announcements rather than why those products exist and how native advertising is destroying the level of trust for third-party media. He stops short of pointing out that tech publications are so short of writers that they can do little else and native advertising is paying the bills, but his point is that the current paradigm has reduced the value of tech journalism.
That’s why this is a great time to be a journalist.
Media houses assume they are still trusted and that their move to “communities” filled with sponsor-developed content has not hurt that position. That assumption is misplaced. Few people trust journalists in general and B2B corporate sales staff are learning that what shows up in the press is much less believable because native advertising is becoming harder to differentiate from independent reporting. Rather than wonder what the media will do to reverse that trend, corporations are learning they can do the job better by hiring or contracting with experienced journalists to do what they do best: find the news and report it accurately. Corporations have more relevant sources of content than the media. All they need is the personnel to turn that content into trustworthy media.
Some technology companies have started putting journalists on retainer to develop engaging content that builds relationship and trust for the corporation. Others are hiring them outright to run content programs. They don’t need million-reader circulations because they know who they want to reach and it’s much lower than a million.
That is great news for all the journalists who want a position that gives them the time and resources to do what they’ve been trained to do and be paid what they are worth. As I’ve said, corporations are already finding the value in independent, in-house and consultant journalists and they are paying top dollar for them. Working with this new breed of journalism requires accepting a level of ethics and independence of thought not normally found in marketing departments but is absolutely necessary for a successful outcome. If we can’t be independent, what we create has no value to the sponsor or the reader.
Traditional third-party media businesses are becoming the training ground for new journalists. There will be an ongoing market demand for product-announcement venues that reach thousands of users so the online and print pubs won’t be going away, but corporations don’t need those venues to establish relationships and trust within their customer base. They need people who know how to find truth wherever it is and report it, be transparent, and act independently for the benefit of the community.
Trustworthy content is the core of Footwasher Media’s business. If you are interested in moving your business communications into the 21st century, contact us today.
Hi Lou. Everyone has an angle, don't they? :)
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think that your points are well considered but you tend to mix apples and oranges. The article you quote (link to) about lack of trust for journalists is focused on news reporting. However, few if any legitimate technology trade journals - discounting the tabloids - are concerned with reporting the news. Instead, the tech journals focus on reporting technology. That's why the better tech pubs employ real engineers as journalists.
Further, it remains to seen whether readers will trust technical corporations or PR firms (large or small) over media houses. The verdict is still out and will be for several years to come. -- JohnB
What this post is saying to me, Lou, is that the current trend is somehow good for journalists because it lets them quit their jobs as journalists, and apply those skills to new jobs as marketers.
ReplyDeleteYes, corporations are hiring ex-journalists into their marketing departments. You list many extremely talented ones. Those individuals bring two things to the table that are very valuable to those companies - the communications skills they have developed during their careers as journalists, and (sometimes) the reputation for integrity and credibility they developed during their jobs as journalists. These companies desperately need these qualities in their marketing communications.
However, once those individuals sit down at that desk in the marketing department, start accepting paychecks as marketers, and start reporting to a marketing manager, they are no longer journalists. It doesn't matter how honest they are in their writing in that role - it is still marketing. They will never, ever write a phrase like "Our company's product has always been a little behind in this area, and we're trying to catch up to company X, who still has a clear lead." No matter how much integrity or credibility they have, those kinds of messages will never appear.
The only people you can trust to deliver those very important, independent, unbiased reviews and analyses of products, trends, and technology are ACTUAL journalists. Not ex-journalists now doing marketing for big companies. It is true that the number of actual journalists is dwindling. It is also true that many other things masquerade as objective journalism, but are not. It is unfortunately further true that many publications do not clearly identify sponsored versus real editorial content, and it is sadly true that many publications allow their editorial to be swayed by advertising and commercial interests.
Regardless of the fact that journalism has taken a beating in recent years, we must persist. Independent journalism is critical to the information ecosystem. It cannot be replaced by pure marketing messaging - no matter how honest and sincere that messaging might be. I often agree with your points on this blog, but by muddying the water and the definitions of journalism and marketing you contribute to the problem and to the erosion of trust in real journalism.
If those journalists are creating content as you describe, then you are right. And in many cases you are right. But tell me what the difference is between this Intel Free Press article and what you write. http://www.intelfreepress.com/news/teacher-using-minecraft-extend-education-beyond-physical-classroom/7940
ReplyDeleteWell, first, it's an article published by Intel which happens to recommend Intel products:
ReplyDelete" In Walker’s case, 25-35 simultaneous students can be handled with a 4-processor server with 1 GB of RAM. For student computers, dual- or quad-core i5 or i7 processors with 2 GB of RAM running OS X or Windows is sufficient. "
So - from that perspective it is marketing, not journalism - even thought there is valuable and presumably accurate information contained therein.
Find me an article on Intel free press that is critical of Intel or any Intel product. Find me one that talks about any advantages of the ARM architecture, or tells something good about TSMC's process technology, or compares Intel's products and services to any others...
I'll tell you what. I've found this article in EE Journal by you:
ReplyDelete"Now, however, there is a fissure in that wall, in the form of new FPGAs from Achronix. Achronix is attacking the big two head-on and hitting them directly with their own weapon of choice - process advantage. Achronix has partnered with Intel to produce new FPGAs based on Intel’s 22nm Tri-Gate (we’d call them FinFETs) transistor technology. With both Xilinx and Altera currently on TSMC’s 28nm planar CMOS processes, we figure this gives Achronix close to a 2- process node advantage with these new FPGAs - one for the smaller geometry and one for the new “3D” Tri-Gate transistors. These two advantages should conspire to allow Achronix to build FPGAs with higher density, lower power consumption, and higher speeds - at a lower unit cost than the two big competitors."
Oh, and guess what, Achronix is one of your sponsors.
;)
So, I take it from the fact that you chose to attack our publication rather than defending your assertion that Intel Free Press is somehow "journalism", that you have not found any examples to support your claim. I'm not surprised.
ReplyDeleteSince your current comment is challenging EE Journal's integrity, and my editorial integrity specifically, I'd like to be very clear on that point:
What I wrote about Achronix above was my own honest, expert opinion as a journalist and an engineer with over 30 years of experience. It was not paid or encouraged.
Yes, I have written positive things about companies who were previous, current, or future sponsors. I have also written negative things about those same companies, and I have compared and contrasted products, services, and strategies from multiple companies - both sponsors and non-sponsors alike. I would point out that both Xilinx and Altera (who are mentioned in the segment above) are also long-time sponsors of our publication.
Like just about every publication in the history of journalism, EE Journal is advertising supported, but we keep a firewall between editorial and commercial content. Our writers (including me) serve the audience, and write without regard to who is or isn't sponsoring us. Our goal is to give the audience honest, objective, critical coverage and analysis. That trust relationship with the audience is extremely important to us. Advertisers are free to put their ads next to our editorial or not, but we do not compromise the integrity of that editorial for money. That is what makes our content journalism rather than marketing. EE Journal is not today, and will never be "pay-for-play".
Kevin, it wasn't an attack. It was an observation. You called Intel Free Press a biased publication simply because it is underwritten by Intel. In their own description, they claim the same impartiality you do. I don't assert that anything you do is anything other than ethical journalism. Why? Because I trust that you are. There is no other proof than your word. I also trust the editorial team at IFP because after reading their work for more than a year, they have earned my trust, just as you have. That they choose to run their publication according to a new financial model from your traditional model should not result in a claim that they are any less ethical than your organization. You and I both know there are other publications that finance their program in the same manner as EE Journal and are less then ethical. That means the financial model of a publication does not determine ethical behavior. The people working in the publication determine ethical behavior by their own actions. To say otherwise is shortsighted and bordering on snobbery.
ReplyDeleteThe integrity of a publication is ultimately decided by the readers, not by the journalists that write for it. Although I haven't yet met a journalist that would agree with that statement.
First, putting a winky emoticon below a personal attack does not change it into an "observation." Asserting that my article was influenced by advertising spend is most certainly questioning my professional ethics, and no number of winky-faces can change that. Comparing journalism to a marketing publication is inherently an attack on that journalism.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I never said that Intel Free Press was a "biased publication." I also never said it was unethical. I said it was marketing and not journalism. However - of COURSE it is a biased publication, it says “Intel” right at the top. All marketing is biased. Writing marketing articles under an Intel masthead that promote Intel products is perfectly ethical. It is just not journalism.
Both marketing and journalism have ethical standards, and there are certainly many unethical examples of both. As an audience member, when I see "Intel" in the masthead, I am pretty sure that none of the marketing articles I'm about to read are going to tell me that ARM's architecture would actually be more power-efficient and perhaps cheaper in the scenario than the Intel processors mentioned in the article. In fact, I’ll be shocked if there are any articles that have information on any of Intel’s competitors, unless they are trying to make a case that Intel’s offerings are superior. I am further confident that there will be no articles critical of Intel’s products, services, or strategies.
The reason you haven’t met a journalist who would agree with you that the integrity of a publication is ultimately decided by the readers, is that it isn’t. “Integrity” is completely determined by whether or not one behaves ethically. The thing the audience has to offer is “trust.” The journalist may have integrity whether or not the audience has awarded its trust.
“Ethics”, “trust”, “integrity”, “marketing”, and “journalism” are all distinct concepts. Trying to mix them causes confusion. Both marketing and journalism can be either trustworthy or not. Both marketing and journalism can be ethical or not. The audience may choose to trust or mistrust sources of both marketing content and journalism. Regardless of ethics and trust, however, marketing and journalism are most definitely not the same thing.
Yes, marketing and journalism are two different things. But there is absolutely nothing that says a corporation cannot practice ethical journalism. The reality is, Kevin, that everything you publish is, in fact, content marketing. there is nothing in your publication that helps people determine who to vote for, what public education is like and what the crime rate is in their cities. People read your content because they need to figure out what to buy and how to use the products and services they buy. You have a vested interest in making sure that the companies that advertise in you publication succeed because, if they don't, they will cease to be advertisers. Their marketing people call you up and ask that you talk to them about their products and services because if you do, more people might buy their products and services. Companies make marketing decisions around your content. They share your content as part of their marketing program. And there are many people who believe what you publish is influenced by the companies you sell advertising to. It doesn't mean that is true, but that is the perception by a majority of readers for all publications.
ReplyDeleteMy implication, not my "assertion," was a response to your blanket application of the term "marketing" on another publication, solely because it is wholly financed by another company. OF COURSE it is a marketing program, but that DOESN"T mean that the content cannot be ethical journalism. In today's paradigm, being transparent is as important as being truthful. The more you are of the former the more you are considered the latter.
I completely understand your dedication to the media paradigm of the 20th century and I applaud your decision to stick to your guns on the theory that it can be profitable. But as I've said to you many times, yours is the exception, not the rule. I gave up trying to get people to support that paradigm long ago. Now I'm dedicated to making the new paradigm more effective and ethical. You may not like it, and that is your prerogative. But you are still living in the past.