Is Branded Content Hurting or Helping Journalism?

Caitlin Hunt

ch968116@ohio.edu

(Courtesy of Network9) 

Journalism is a profession that many deem as one of the most creative and imaginative fields out there. A journalist must take a story and find a way to bring humanity to the subject. Or, they must creatively find a way to tell an older, timeless story in a new way. Journalists spend hours tirelessly finding news stories and pitching them to their editors, but what if this portion of the job just disappeared? This could be the case with branded content entering the media as a new way to advertise. 

According to mission.org, branded content is defined as a form of non-traditional advertising, meaning this content is outside of the traditional advertising methods of commercials, ads on social media, and banner ads online. Branded content can range from articles in news magazines, a YouTube Video, or a sponsored podcast. 

This new type of advertising content is nothing new. Branded content has been around for years through brands sponsoring large television events or even individual shows. But, recently, the lines between actual and sponsored content have blurred, which could confuse audiences, which in turn could damage a journalist. 

In recent times, many companies have reached out to individual news outlets to help create stories to promote their products. For example, The New York Times did a piece entitled “Woman Inmates: Why the Male Model Doesn’t Work” in paid partnership with one of Netflix’s most popular shows, “Orange is The New Black.” Online, the piece looks like a traditional article, but The New York Times included a small header that states its a paid post. While it’s great that The New York Times is transparent with partnerships, the partnership does seem questionable. 

The general public often understands that journalism is an independent entity (but, in today’s political climate, that opinion has changed). This means stories featured in the print and online editions of a news magazine have come from the minds of the individual writers, but this kind of content insinuates that a corporation or an outside party had a hand in what was featured. In this case, some may question if this story was an original interest of The New York Times before Netflix’s involvement or if Netflix pushed or pitched this idea. Also, how much involvement did Netflix have in the project? Did they have sway the story in their favor? These types of questions from the public are reasonable and important to address because many rely on journalists and news outlets because they are independent of outside interference. A lack of transparency about these types of articles can break the already weak bond between the public and the news media. 

The likely argument from the news media about branded content is simple: money. I get it. There’s no question that newspapers and other outlets have struggled to reach their audiences in this digital age, and advertising is essential for news outlets to create creative, groundbreaking stories. But, should editors and managers take away the creativity of their field for a couple thousand? News outlets have every right to find new ways to make a dime, but I hope they do not forgo two of their ethical values and traditions: creativity and transparency.