Will Sponsored Content Take Over Journalism?

Gabby Hollowell 
gh262214@ohio.edu 

Advertising is Journalism 

There’s a reason why advertising is in the school of journalism at Ohio University. Advertisers’ only motive is not just to sell their product, but also to tell a story and have consumers connect with their brand – just as a journalist would. 

From transitioning from newspaper and magazine journalism to advertising, I understand the threat to journalists as storytelling ads may begin to take over their online content. Banner ads and cube ads are a dead art, in my opinion, and I’ve dreaded having to design them as I delve into this business. They are a nuisance and no one pays attention to them. I’m excited to see how sponsored content will shape the Internet, although I do agree that it isn’t fair to journalists. As I still write for a blog and a magazine, I would hate to have an advertisement take over my story. I don’t wish to see journalism die, but there are right and wrong ways to go about publishing sponsored content. 

Is it Ethical? 

PRSA posed that sponsored content is not always ethical, which I can agree with. “If everything that you publish is paid propaganda, then your readership will dwindle to near zero, and it will happen quickly.” Marketed content can easily be overlooked as an editorial. Forbes is an example of a publisher that emphasizes sponsored posts. They make it clear by labeling sponsored content with "BrandVoice" at the top next to the marketer's logo, including a line of text that says "Connecting marketers to the Forbes audience" and a "What is this?" link that readers can click for a fuller explanation. Transparency is key.

Here’s an example of sponsored content on Forbes. 

 An example of how Forbes highlights sponsored content
http://wordviewediting.com/the-key-to-success-with-sponsored-content/ 

PRSA also suggested to “allow for real reader comments, like those found on news and opinion pieces. Don’t edit or remove the negative ones only because someone bought and paid for the content.” Advertisers don’t always get a lot of feedback from consumers, and I think this would aid in that. 

What’s most important about sponsored content is that it needs to reflect the publication's values. For example, if BuzzFeed posted the above article from Forbes on their website, it would be extremely out of place. 

Effective Use of Sponsored Content

Speaking of BuzzFeed, Poynter laid out an example of how BuzzFeed encourages advertisers to not write about themselves, but to put their content into BuzzFeed’s style: “fun” and “grabby.” The 19 most ridiculous text fails is an article sponsored (and clearly stated at the top where a byline would be) by Virgin Mobile, a cell phone company. The article is in BuzzFeed’s format, and it is something BuzzFeed's readers would expect to read. These text fails happen on a phone, however Virgin is never mentioned within the article. I think that was a smart move on Virgin’s part, and an effective collaboration with BuzzFeed.

As long as there is a clear divide, I think sponsored content can help shape advertising and journalism. It has its place, though. Sponsored content can help provide more information about a brand. I think sponsored content can be helpful to journalism in taking readers to other stories they may be interested in.

And Now... A Word From Our Sponsors

Tim Hurst

th918914@ohio.edu

Sponsored content can be tricky. In a world where banner ads are all but irrelevant, the fiscal dilemma arises. How are publications to make money? Should they go "New York Times style" and have a certain number of free articles a month before they start charging? Should they give their paying subscribers bonus content not available to the general populace? The truth is, there is no easy solution.

Adblock

Is using Adblock ethical as a journalist? I've gone back and forth on this topic countless times. The argument against Adblock is simply, as the page states, "free content isn't really free." Most sites use harmless ads to generate revenue so they can keep their content technically free to users. Many users are annoyed by the ads, so they add a quick plugin to their browser, which is also free to them. What they either don't realize or don't care about, however, is how it affects the content provider.

More users have Adblock installed than not, and it's killing publications. Some, like Forbes, have made it impossible to view their content with Adblock running on your system unless you disable it or, at least, whitelist their site. That seems reasonable, no?

Articles or Advertisements?

Some publications are guilty of disguising paid advertisements as legitimate journalistic articles. This is called native advertising. Sites like BuzzFeed are known for doing this, and it's rubbing a lot of people the wrong way and giving journalists a bad name as a whole.

Luckily, this practice bothers John Oliver a lot. You'll never find content like that with him. Never. You can watch his content here. He's great. All joking aside, the link takes you to a parody of native advertisement.

To Ad or not to Ad?

There seems to be a happy medium, but it is hard to find that line. Some sites are so completely overtaken with ads that they make viewing the content a challenge. Because of the sheer number of ads, they'll make a little more profit per viewer, but lose viewers in the process. The reverse is true as well. Finding a nice balance is definitely key, whilst trying to avoid consumers feeling the need for pesky Adblock.

Targeting Ads

In the day and age in which we live, Google knows a lot about us as individuals. Using cookies, Google is able to track the sites we go and the things we click on to build a profile about us. That profile helps Google target us with certain advertisements rather than others. For example, Demon Hunter was my favorite band in high school. When their 2010 album was coming out, nearly every site I went to on my parents' desktop computer had an ad for their new album. My dad mentioned it to me and I was astonished. That was my first real memorable encounter with targeted advertisements.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/63/3f/23/633f23fd8dc33b2145fa8de02641ac04.jpg

The question is, though, is this ethical? Did I agree to allow Google to track my every movement and know all this personal information about me? Ethical or not, I believe this is the way of the future. Soon, social media and Internet advertising are going to be revolutionized. Each person will have a comprehensive digital profile, and marketing is going to use that to target us each individually.

That's only my own prediction, at least. What do you think? Is the use of targeting ads morally okay? Is this where the Internet is headed? I'd like to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Native Advertising

Neelam Khan

Nk852613@ohio.edu

The difference between advertising and content marketing

When The Atlantic published and then removed a piece advertising the Church of Scientology, the skepticism towards native advertising become more apparent than ever. Many argue native advertising’s role in journalism and magazine editorials as either productive for both publisher and ad agency, or destructive for credibility and readership trust. It can go both ways. The challenge, Willets explains, is not just about ethics, but also how you can present branded content to your readers. If it’s done well, then it serves a purpose. It’s all about the content and presentation. As Mike Orren from Speakeasy explains, there’s a fine line between advertorial and content marketing. Advertorial would be the instance with The Atlantic; an advertising message thinly disguised as an editorial piece. It’s of little value and readers can sniff right through the advertising. Content marketing is “advertorial without all the ‘me, me me.’”

Guidelines

Meaning, advertising that is disguised as editorial should be in most part, an editorial. It should speak to the reader the magazine’s interests, and should barely be seen as an ad, but as a way to engage the audience instead of sneakily sponsoring something. The audience needs to know what they’re reading, therefore as publishers and writers we must fully disclose marketing content from editorial. We must allow our readers to comment, despite whether someone paid for the content or not. Content must stay current and up to date, and lastly, we must respect the organizational divide. News staff must not write, edit, or place branded content in order to keep their independence.

ASME created tighter guidelines for native advertising, saying to explain sponsored content with a prominent statement that explains the article’s origin. Another guideline, although not followed well enough, was to make native ads visually separated from editorial content. That means different fonts and graphics so the audience knows it’s sponsored. The problem with that is that most publishers want their native ads to look like the editorials.

Being transparent is key

Readership is the main focus of advertising, as well as editorial. For editorial, we want our readers to trust what we say. We need credibility and independence, which is why it is important for journalists to stay transparent. For sponsored content, our readers need to trust what we say and know that although it is sponsored content, it isn’t just an ad. They need to know that our editors and news reporters aren’t writing sponsored content. It’s about trust. For a magazine like Forbes, advertising works well until you can’t tell what is advertising and what is real content. Their readership grows, but the power of their brand risks fading. BrandVoice allows advertisers to produce editorial content resembling real editorial work for Forbes, with 1,200 contributors in addition to staff posts. This creates a multitude of opportunity for marketers, but the messages do get mixed.

It’s hard to know what you read is sponsored content or not, that is why as journalists we have to be transparent to our readers so that there can be a balance between advertising and editorial content that is ethical.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/the-scientology-ad/267198/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc

Journalism within Politics

Erin Franczak
ef441614@ohio.edu

The readings heavily focused on the controversies journalists face during election season. Reporting and staying ethical while writing politics is a hard concept for many journalists who struggle to keep their opinions to themselves.  The four things that affect how well a journalist will succeed are mostly about biases, but there are other problems that can happen during an election. The most important is to be sure to get the facts right and to state them promptly and accurately.

The article "Fact checkers code of Principles" comes into play with this concept. I don't think that a lot of citizens realize the difficulty and accuracy needed to perfect fact checking skills. For an article about why fact checking is an important function of journalism, click here.

There are a set of codes that fact checkers should follow. Some examples of the codes listed are commitment to non-partisanship and fairness, commitment to transparency of sources, a commitment to transparency of funding and organization, a commitment to transparency of methodology, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/369/892/644.jpg

When it comes to biases, there is the issue of balancing the time and energy fairly on each candidate. Some examples of this would be to give an equal amount of TV air time to both candidates. Click here for an article that discusses why this is beneficial to the public and the democracy. A newspaper editor should also be focused on being sure that the newspaper is focusing on the pros and cons of both candidates fairly. Even if it is accidental, it is unethical and does not represent the organization well.

Another example of bias is writing pieces completely based on the thoughts of the writer. The article "The Death of He Said, She Said" was based on the controversies of this concept. It referenced the concept of he said, she said as journalists focusing on quotes and phrases that resemble the original word choice to prevent opinion and unethical behaviors.

The article discussed one piece in particular titled "Trump Gives Up a Lie, but Refuses to Repent." The title alone is very opinionated. The article quoted the piece as, "It's headline read 'Trump Gives Up a Lie, but Refuses to Repent.' Not falsehood, which leaves open the possibility that Trump was merely mistaken, but lie, which suggests, accurately, that Trump had every reason to know that what he was saying about Obama's citizenship was false."

I personally believe that that type of journalism does not belong in an article that is based on fact. This type of journalism belongs in editorial columns and places where there is a disclaimer about the language of the piece.

The last ethical challenge journalists must face is what is appropriate to repeat on the news. This is an especially interesting circumstance because Trump has said many vulgar remarks during his campaign such as the locker room talk where he discussed rather inappropriate and disrespectful thoughts about women. When do you draw the line? The New York Times felt that, after much discussion, it was not inappropriate to reproduce.

When does Fair and Equal Mean the Same Thing

Michael Galloway
mg775613@ohio.edu

With Halloween ending and November beginning, the media coverage of the 2016 Presidential Election is at an all time high. This election is one to be put down in the history books. Regardless what the country decides, the decision will be one to be remembered. The media coverage has been called into question as to what is fair. However, what is fair? What is considered equal coverage?

Both sides of the elections, both supporters of Donald Trump and supporters of Hillary Clinton, have attacked the media on multiple occasions for unbalanced and unfair media coverage. Both sides are quick to pull the fair treatment card when a negative story is written about their candidate.

In an article by John Sides, a writer for, “The Washington Post,” Sides deconstructs these claims. A group of data journalists created an algorithm to depict which candidate received more coverage. The data also depicted whether said coverage is more negative or positive for each candidate. The end result was that Trump had more articles released about him than Clinton (shown in Figure One) however the data also showed that both candidates' coverage was, on average, neutral stances, meaning not largely for or against each candidate (seen in Figure Two). 

So more stories are coming out about Trump? How is this a fair representation of Clinton if all people hear about it Trump? Why is the media not aiding in a fair election? All of these questions are answered in Jack Shafer’s article, “The Case Against JournalisticBalance,” published by, “Politico Magazine.” The article dives into the ideals that the media is not a part of the government. A good story is not always a perfectly balanced story. There are instances when a negative story of one candidate is released, this does not mean that a negative story about the other candidate must be released either. 

Shafer quotes British journalist Bernard Levin by saying, "The press is not the Fourth Estate; it is not part of the constitutional structure of the country; it is not, and must never be, governed by any externally imposed rules other than the law of the land."

This is a true statement, however there is a common concern that I will raise. Even though the media is not a registered part of the government, they are the only source of information the people have. The media controls a lot in the realm of politics because without the media coverage of each candidate, the general American population would be clueless to the issues at hand. 

By me making this claim, I am not asserting that the media should have to report one hundred percent fair at all times, it does however mean that, as journalists, we need to acknowledge our power in the country. Shafer also says, “Creating a perfectly balanced story isn’t the same as creating a good story…”

           

My interpretation of this quote is that as good journalists, we must recognize what is newsworthy. If a scandal is surfaced about either candidate, we should make it our responsibility to report on it as truthfully as possible. However, this does not mean we must find a negative story or scandal from the competing candidate before publishing the first story to create an equal and fair environment.

Figure One

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/

 Figure Two

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/