A few months ago, Mitch Joel
predicted that content marketing would turn into branded journalism.
Joel argues that marketers must let journalists live and breathe as actual journalists within the company and report on the industry at large, undisturbed. I agree that journalism is the best marketing a brand could ask for (hello, PR departments!), but I think it’s pretty contradictory and outlandish to suggest that brands can start their own in-house journalism operation.
He says hiring a journalist part-time or starting an entire department will give organizations high quality content to publish. This content could include ‘unbiased’ articles about the industry or thought leadership work, including commentaries and interviews with influential individuals in the industry. He writes: “They could add a layer of credibility to the content you’re publishing, because you’re very clear in your disclosures that this journalist’s role is not to write favorable content about the company, but to write great content about the industry you serve.”
Really? Does anyone actually believe that a so-called brand journalist wouldn’t feel pressure to tout their own brand or minimize their brand’s deficiencies? What if the competitor is doing better? In what universe would a brand allow their own content to tout a competitor? Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing here, but the conflict of interest appears to be too great. I don’t see any situation in which Brand X would let a person they’ve employed rate one of their products as subpar in comparison to a competitor. Even if the purpose is not to discuss competitors or specific products but to inform with industry-wide content, the goal will still be to have the journalist reinforce the organization’s particular perspective or strategy. There’s no way an in-house journalist will be seen as anything other than a corporate shill, as good as their intentions may be. Newspapers try this themselves with the ombudsman, who is supposed to serve as an outside critic of the paper’s coverage. Sometimes it works,
sometimes it backfires and
critique can lead to internal strife.
But I do believe in the idea of creating valuable, meaningful content. I just disagree with the semantics of ‘branded journalism.’ Branded content feels more accurate to me, and I agree that journalism is a great place to get lessons on how to do it right. (I’ll write a separate post with some of those tactical lessons next week.)
Marketingspeak is rarely effective and most consumers can see right through it, even if it’s clever. Providing content – text, video, audio, photos, whatever – that’s not about you or your brand is where content is heading. It’s now about the consumer and his or her needs. By providing information about the industry or things related to but not actually about your product, you are performing a service for your audience. You are adding value beyond the product because you are finally thinking (and talking) beyond your product. And when you do this, you also start to stand out in the category.
Many fashion brands already know this about meaningful content – perhaps because fashion brands and women’s magazines have been collaborating together for decades, and it’s a widely accepted relationship. ‘Advertorial’ is a phrase often used to describe ads with ‘editorial’ content on them (actual paid ads), but it can also refer to the types of pages you see in magazines that blend product with in-house editorial content that is promised not to have been preapproved by the advertiser. (This may be a fine church-state separation for some, but notice that it’s rare for magazine content to feature products they don’t ‘love’ on their editorial pages.)
The challenge for brands, then, is doing this in an honest way. I think adding a level of accountability for brands can only be a good thing. If you’re publishing an article about how this industry technique or product is necessary and better than anything else on the market, it better be true. And if it’s not, improve the product. Turn thought leadership and the editorial content you produce into iterative action that proves you’re more than all talk. If your product is in fact not a great value, then work to make sure that it is. The meaningful, successful content on your site or on your social channels can provide a roadmap for your organization’s next steps.
If you’re concerned about quality and integrity (or just have limited resources), by all means outsource the content to vetted writers. I’m becoming a fan of
Contently, a content creation house that serves as a safe, comfortable medium between vetted journalists and brands desperate for content. Brand publishing via freelance journalists. Currently, they’re writing blog and other content for reputable places such as Mint.com and LinkedIn. Because of their own internal selection process, the content that comes out isn’t content farm crap but real, researched content. (And writers are paid appropriately.) Assignments are unbylined, so the content comes from the brand itself, and the writer doesn’t have to brand his or herself as a communications writer.
The point is not to pretend that your content is unbiased but to focus more on providing trustworthy information out there that has a strong narrative and includes the audience wherever possible. Static corporate websites are over. You have to engage your audiences wherever they are and try to provide them with information or a service that can help them live their lives better. We’re doing this with the new
searsStyle site right now, a branded editorial hub that touts Sears fashion but also provides useful information about shopping and fashion that would interest the Sears fashion audience.
And yes, that was a clever branded content tactic I just used: waiting until the end of this long, industry-related post to subtly mention one of our own projects. And I bet you don’t totally hate me for it!
