February 12th, 2010

Not Buying It! Sponsored Media = Advertising

2299627995_0aa18df0f9.jpg

Sometimes the 2.0 world tries to reinvent some things, like advertising, and give it a new name (image by nocas). And so it is with the term, “Sponsored Media,” perpetrated by the likes of such companies as Pay Per Post, oops, IZEA, and TwitAd. These companies have even solicited, and in some cases, paid for the support of some of PR 2.0′s most celebrated voices in support of sponsored media.

The sponsored spin reminds me of the energy industry’s clean coal positioning. No matter how you greenwash it, it’s still dirty.

Ironically, the end result is less trust in peer to peer media. Why? Because some of the most trusted voices are now blogging for money, and can’t even do so in a clear-cut transparent manner by declaring these posts as paid advertorials (remember that term, media buyers?). Instead they hide behind the “new term” sponsored, which is in fact a retroactive term dating back to the 50s and 60s when broadcast advertisers were called, gasp, “sponsors.”

I’m not so disappointed in IZEA and the like. With the rise of new media power, it was inevitable that money would come along and seek various ways (good and bad) of becoming associated with the voice of the authentic amateur.

faust.jpg

It’s understandable that some people see this as a legitimate means of monetizing their blog or Twitter stream. Selling placement on your blog/media property is. It’s also a Faustian dance where depending on how far below the surface you sink, you sacrifice trust and relationships for contractual riches.

My disappointment lies in those that go so far as to claim that they are ushering in a new era of media transparency; that they are leading the PR 2.0 revolution, and yet support — even promote — this sponsored media spin. As someone who has been along for a great portion of the ride, I am saddened by these developments. Some people who I hold in high regard look tarnished now.

Frankly, the term sponsored media fools no one. Except the people trying to rationalize their IZEA pay check.

Recommendations

Organizations: Don’t believe the hype. It’s advertising, and as such has value, but sponsored media is nothing more than the electronic advertorial. And no matter what someone tells you, the post will be met with less trust than a traditional one.

Bloggers/Media Owners: I think everyone understands that monetization needs to happen for some. If at all possible, try to monetize in different ways though, for this method sacrifices your integrity and trust factor, especially with frequency.

Also, call it what it is. The sponsored media bit makes you look slimy, and actually increases your distrust factor exponentially. Why? You look like you are trying to trick people. Readers will be much more accepting of the occasional paid placement if it is simply called an advertisment.

Popularity: 5% [?]

  • Kate Robins

    Trust, viginity…lose them and there’s no getting them back. Okay, a lot of resources and a good campaign may result in a noteworthy comeback, if you’re, say, Nixon. Assuming most of aren’t that intriguing, the old blunt rule of thumb still stands. If someone’s paying you to promote their product, you’re producing promotional material. If you don’t stamp it as such, sooner or later you’re toast. It’s quite clear.

  • http://www.ikonmarketinggroup.com Craig Sutton

    Agree with you Geoff and backup Marcs point, why would I have an interest in an article that someone was paid to write as an ad?

    A blog to me is an open sharing of that bloggers thoughts, and monetary influence is likely to skew that. Knowing this was the case ahead of time will not increase the likelihood that I will have an interest.

  • http://socialnetworkroadmap.com Christopher S. Rollyson

    Geoff, thanks for keeping this in the spotlight. Remember the MSM division between “editorial” and “advertising?” This is just a Web 2.0 retweet. Word of mouth≠cash payment, and each person is guardian of his/her integrity. No one can have it both ways: if you are paid, sorry, I don’t believe you as much because you are no longer saying it (only) because you believe in it. I hope that all people who play with this realize that if we (collectively) destroy word of mouth by discrediting it, we will have lost more than anything that we could have possibly gained. Many bloggers will discredit themselves by leveraging their WOM cachet into quick cash, minimizing their disclosure. The irony is, all they are showing is lack of creativity and courage. Put it behind a boundary and disclose very openly. There’s no such thing as a little cheating, the ultimate slippery slope.

  • http://www.smartblogs.com/socialmedia Rob Birgfeld

    I have a problem with the majority of the “pay-per-tweet/blog” programs out there– but only on one side of coin– those brands that are actually paying the bills. To me, this issue gets blurry when talking about celebrities. Apparently, Kim Kardashian commands about 10K per tweet, and I’m not sure how that differs from an appearance on talk show plugging a product, skin care line, or upcoming movie. There’s not really a “disclosure” in those types of appearances, so I think we might have a problem in the social context…which many of us still hold to be somewhat sacred. I’m just not sure there’s much that can be done– except for consumers to get smarter about filtering out what are just cleverly disguised marketing messages. Lonelygirl15 anyone?

  • http://www.toprankmarketing.com Lee Odden

    Great post Geoff. Sponsored social content could degrade trust if not transparent or poorly executed.

    But I’m curious what you think of services like NewsForce or ARA’s AdFusion? They syndicate content to MSM as either advertorial or sponsored editorial and seem to be doing well.

  • http://geofflivingston.com Geoff Livingston

    Lee: I think it’s inevitable. We see this with top blogs already, and it plays off already accepted paradigms in traditional media. The blatant full disclosure helps, but in reality, you always sacrifice trust when you bring advertising in. It’s a balancing act one has to maintain in any kind of publishing business, from the NY Times to IZEA bloggers.

  • Pingback: JasonFalls (Jason Falls)

  • Pingback: jangles (Neville Hobson)

  • http://directmarketingobservations.com/ Marc Meyer

    Love the timing of this and I’m going to tie into something else. I follow and read people that I trust and respect, because they have earned my trust and respect. Why in the hell would I want to read a paid post? It’s skewed from the outset. It’s just a very long advertisement at that point from a blogger. Disclosure or not it flies in the face of what might have made this blogger worth reading in the first place.

    Taking it a step further, Forrester banning their bloggers from having their own blogs and pulling it all in house under the guise of owning IP, but still allowing them to “blog”, turns the whole thing again, into someone else churning out something I really don’t wanna read. It’s stepped on. Yea but its a blog post…no it isn’t.

  • Pingback: kevinpalmer (Kevin Palmer)

  • Pingback: jeffwiedner (Jeff Wiedner)

  • Pingback: Genuine (Jim Turner)

  • Pingback: mediaphyter (Jennifer Leggio)

  • Pingback: cloudspark (cloudspark)

  • Geoff Livingston

    Rob, Marc, Christopher, Craig and Kate: It’s an obvious dilemma with a clear out path, but money always seems to make the obvious more difficult for some folks. And then it becomes a question of character. No one is above the law.

    Kate: I do think you can regain trust (Nixon, OMG). But you have to admit you were wrong and change. Not sure many of these folks have the character to do that. If you think your presence can sustain trust hits like that, then ego is not likely to permit a public admission of error.

  • http://www.NewsforceNetwork.com Vince Bianco

    Geoff,

    Actually what we’ve found here at Newsforce over these past two years is that properly disclosed and well written “sponsored content” or “advertorial” is incredibly relevant to the reader’s news gathering experience (our publishers are all news sites).

    Our eye tracking study demonstrates that news readers not only read and scan our advertorial headlines almost as ofter as the real news, but when asked, 85% of them said that they understood that it was commercial content yet were interested in reading it anyway.

    Thanks for the post.

    Sincerely,

    Vince Bianco
    CEO
    Newsforce, Inc.

  • http://www.trustedadvisor.com Charles H. Green

    This–in addition to the fact that my subject matter is trust–is precisely why I have not accepted advertising in the 3+ years of my blog’s existence.

    For certain blogs, I don’t think blatant commercialism necessarily produces a conflict of interest about which to be concerned. But if you’re expressing an opinion and expect others to consider it seriously–well, then, how can you?

    What was that about Caesar’s wife?

  • http://www.ARAnetOnline.com Scott Severson

    Our Adfusion service was mentioned in a previous comment. We agree that sponsored content should always be identified as such. That’s why every single article we publish on behalf of clients in our network is clearly identified as sponsored content.

    At Adfusion we employ a team of professional writers and editors. It’s their goal with every article to provide value to the reader. The growth in our company reflects the value we provide consumers and the results we generate for our clients.

    Scott Severson
    President
    ARAnet

  • Pingback: How You Say It Matters Too - Lessons on Blogging | Waxing UnLyrical

  • Nancy Fulton

    Did you know Shakespeare’s company of actors was called The Kings Men? That was sponsored media.  In fact, almost all media is sponsored. Television shows, features films that get ads added when they go to broadcast radio . . . Youtube is sponsored . . . the question is . . . who collects the money. The guy posting the content people actually come to see/read or some third party that just acts as a channel.  I just wish the media were better . . .