What you’re about to read is a piece of original journalism, brought to you by the sugary zing of Old Brown Cola. Ahhh, you can’t beat the refreshing taste of Old Brown.

Barilla pasta is in no way sponsoring this Greg Barila article. Picture: Jim Trifyllis

That statement isn’t true. There is no such company and this article isn’t brought to you by anyone, or any brand, whose core business isn’t (and hasn’t always been) journalism.

But it’s 2012. How sure of the independence of all the sources of your information can you really be?

Last week on The Punch, Sydney University student Michael Koziol wrote about journalism’s impossible maths problem.  That is, how do you find work for an unending supply of wannabe journalists in an industry with fewer and fewer jobs for them?

You can’t, really, and as Koziol pointed out, many graduates will give up on journalism and find jobs on the proverbial dark side; in public relations. *Shudder*.

And that fact gives rise to the next most obvious question. What happens to the PR industry when “there are no newspapers left to puff to”?

“Perhaps Ogilvy should buy a printing press,” Koziol wrote.

The truth is they already have one. It’s called the Internet and in the US, it’s given rise to a lucrative and powerful industry known variously as “brand journalism”, branded content or content marketing.

The fact is, dozens of brands (including individuals such as rapper Jay-Z) are already using free, simple to use publishing tools, social networks and video platforms to skirt the traditional media and “manage” their own message.

Many are also using their large stores of cash to hire professional journalists, editors and photographers in order to produce content that engages audiences and tells whatever “story” the brand is keen to tell.

Mashable contributor Shane Snow put it this way in a panel discussion on the subject during Social Media Week in New York back in February.

“Journalism is about telling true stories”.

“Advertising and public relations are also about storytelling; Telling stories through commercials, through ads in newspapers and on the radio; Telling stories to reporters, hoping that they’ll write something about you.

“With the advent of social media, what we’re seeing today are brands (who were once simply advertising, or whispering in the ears of the press), are now starting to talk directly to their audience.”

Duy Linh Tu, Head of Digital Media at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, told the panel the practice was “just truth-telling in a kind of way that highlights a lifestyle, or an idea or a possibility for a product”.

“Brand journalism is just telling stories that engage an audience, not unlike what airlines did with airline magazines before digital.”

Companies who’ve opened a direct dialogue with their audiences include American Express, Johnson & Johnson, Red Bull and Burberry.

But their message is not always as aggressive or in-your-face as you might think.

In fact, at least as far as some branded journalism is concerned, the brand underwriting the content is often only subtly apparent, if it’s apparent at all. 

Why? Because companies have worked out they can build loyal, engaged audiences - even generate revenue through traffic to their own websites - by serving up content of quality and value.

“It’s important the information the brands are producing is non-branded,” Matt Creamer, a writer with Ad Age told the Social Media Week discussion. 

“It has to be good, useful information that’s detached from the branded communication a brand is going to do. It can’t just be advertising,” Creamer said, citing American Express’ Open Forum, a website offering resources for business owners, as an example.

“You don’t have to be an American Express consumer to find value there.”

The question is does it matter and do we care?

Our hearts say yes. But like so many things in life, the truth is it depends.

Information, whether it is provided by The Wall Street Journal or McDonald’s has an inherent value, so long as it’s both current and correct.

If new mums and dads find value in the popular Baby Center website, can anyone really argue against it, just because the information comes courtesy of Johnson’s?

But information by itself, without analysis or context, no matter how slickly presented, isn’t journalism. 

And stories underwritten by brands, no matter how they move or engage audiences, can never carry the same weight as journalism produced by real media organizations, because their motives are different.

One wants to sell cars and sugary drinks and concert tickets and the other wants to make enough money to produce news that often isn’t sexy. 

“What kind of breaking news could you do for Axe cologne?” Columbia University’s Duy Linh Tu asks.

“I just can’t see it”.

But brands are playing the game now, none-the-less.

And that means increasing numbers of journalism students will find their first job in the industry isn’t with the local radio station or newspaper, but a major brand or business who’s decided that “journalism” is a useful means to an end.

“We’re in a position where we have to recognize that our graduates come out with huge debt and they’ve got to pay the bills, so in one way, if they can still write then they’re still in the game”, Linh Tu said.

“We just have to figure out how much of their work can be for The New York Times and how much it can be for Ford.”

Until then, here’s a quick word from our sponsors…

Follow Greg on Twitter @barilski

Most commented

40 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:53am | 12/07/12

      Intentional cognitive dissonance works very well. If I hear lies and bullshit, I simply go deaf. However I make one exception, -  I always listen to what Tony Abbott says.  You can sometimes get a laugh out of it.

    • Al says:

      08:33am | 12/07/12

      Finaly acotrel admits the basis for all his pro-Labour comments. “If I hear lies and bullshit, I simply go deaf.”
      So this is why we only hear the ‘Abbott Bad’ mantra.

    • Shezzam says:

      06:04am | 12/07/12

      How scary is it that online bickering over tattoos has over 200 comments and I’m the first one here? *starts twiddling thumbs and watching the door for other intelligent people to begin arriving*  nope, still on my own… At least I am here Greg, looks like there’s more IQ for us mate.

    • Greg says:

      09:04am | 12/07/12

      Because the tattoo one has been up for over a day and this one has only been up for 3 hours…....

    • Rebecca says:

      09:23am | 12/07/12

      That’s because you’re online at 6am.

    • Susan says:

      11:33am | 12/07/12

      Also because you can run an eye over a tattoo topic, understand the intent and respond in under 5 minutes.  This article requires concentration, time and great understanding.  I have a lazy brain today so I just wish it was about pasta. wink

    • VVS says:

      07:23am | 12/07/12

      I wish there really was a drink called Old Brown Cola…

    • acotrel says:

      07:55am | 12/07/12

      .... Vic Bitter - straight from the horse !

    • Woodward says:

      07:42am | 12/07/12

      Thanks Scoop for such insight.

    • Woodward says:

      07:42am | 12/07/12

      Thanks Scoop for such insight.

    • Mark G says:

      08:58am | 12/07/12

      Another point you missed in modern journalism is the gullibility of many normal journalists to the PR stunts generated by the groups you are talking about. This goes as deep as the many studies that are apparently scientific. It’s amazing how many articles are released into the media as stories when the sponsors of a study are really questionable. For example stuff like ‘A study has showed that wine can be healthy for you. (Study sponsored by wine growers association of XXXXX)’ or ‘Scientists have found that people who take vitamins twice a day tend to have more active lives (Study sponsored by Natures Own). A recent example was a study that showed that Batman, by the laws of physics, couldn’t have actually flown with just his cape. It was a silly study that just happened to line up with the release of the movie. hhmmm funny that. Free PR is a wonderful thing in business. When you look at who paid the bills for these studies, you will quickly see why they came to the conclusions that they did. Journalists eat this shit up and write stories on the results. This would either suggest complete gullibility or that they are also being paid by these companies as well. I’m not sure which is worse.

    • mikespol says:

      12:58pm | 12/07/12

      To quote the Chaser “A study has shown that over 99% of studies show exactly what those who paid for the study wanted it to show.”.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:03am | 12/07/12

      Let us make this really, really simple, and work up from there:

      Advertisers are hired to make the company more money than they cost to run the ad.

      The company cares about nothing except making profit, and will do whatever they legally can (and sometimes illegally can) to make that profit.

      The entire PR industry is geared towards high-end psychological studies on how best to part you from your cash.  Billions and billions are spent annually on new and exciting ways to brainwash enough people into buying shit they don’t need.

      In addition, they use that same $$ to buy politicians who then provide an education system that does NOT teach our children how to avoid the kinds of pressures those same corporate heavyweights are bringing to bear on their young minds.

      I tried to prevent my daughter from accessing Facebook, so she got one through her SCHOOL email.  Her school provided the access I forbade her having (I was waiting until 14).

      I can’t fight the whole system.  If I could, more people would and it’d be anarchy.  The system, however, needs to protect all of us, and especially those without the advantages of quality education, quality parenting or quality wisdom.

      This is why we need the help, the protection from unscrupluous advertisers.  This is, essentially, one of the critical roles of government, yet it’s the one most routinely ignored, because they employ the exact same tactics to get you to vote for them.

      Acotrel can be…odd…sometimes, but on this he’s exactly right:  The system runs on the bullshit that is PR.

    • Greg Barila says:

      11:47am | 12/07/12

      You raise some really important points Mahhrat. One of the fundamental principles of journalism is transparency, fairness and balance. And that may be one of the areas where the use of the term ‘journalism’ as it relates to this kind of branded content becomes a problem and a concern. it’s important that information provided by brands is accurate and had value, but the context also matters. Who’s providing it and what’s their agenda?

    • Susan says:

      01:02pm | 12/07/12

      Greg “One of the fundamental principles of journalism is transparency, fairness and balance. And that may be one of the areas where the use of the term ‘journalism’ as it relates to this kind of branded content becomes a problem and a concern. it’s important that information provided by brands is accurate and had value, but the context also matters. Who’s providing it and what’s their agenda? “

      Right.  So, a ‘brand journalist’ would probably write similar pieces to what Choice does.  Right?  Because there you are at least talking back and forwards about pluses and minuses with no fear nor favour.

      I am yet to see any ‘brand journalist’ do that.  They are offering advertorials because they can’t do anything else if paid by a single manufacturer or brand to write.

      I hope we are persuading you to at least re-think your stance on ‘brand journalism’ vs ‘advertorial’.  I can’t see, honestly, any scenario aside from something like Choice where you can consider the writing any form of journalism - coming back to the qualities you stated need to exist in a journalistic piece of writing.

    • Greg Barila says:

      01:48pm | 12/07/12

      @susan Enjoying our back and forth, which, after all is the whole point of the Punch and why writers publish here, and you’re right, the fact that we are free to debate freely in this way is absolutely why independent journalism is so important in a democracy. If I didn’t make it clear in the piece, I find this whole movement somewhat worrying, if only because brands with large reserves of cash are draining talent away from vocations where we need it most and some of which have already been discussed here - quality journalism and investigation. But because I’m a professional journalist, I’m also duty bound to try to understand the world I’m a fair, reasoned and balanced manner which I hope you can see I tried to reflect in my article and in my comments here. Yes, brand sponsored content is usually designed to drive sales of goods and services, and you can call some of it advertorial if you want but some of it is actually narrative based content which has nothing to do with the brand or product. This is the trend I was interested in drawing attention to.

    • Susan says:

      02:35pm | 12/07/12

      @Greg…enjoyable indeed smile  I need an example of the following because, for me at least, the main piece didn’t offer me that and I am battling to see where journalism, as such, comes into this:

      “brand sponsored content is usually designed to drive sales of goods and services, and you can call some of it advertorial if you want but some of it is actually narrative based content which has nothing to do with the brand or product.”

      So, can you give me an example or two of sponsored content which has nothing to do with the brand or product AND that meets the qualities of journalism you have raised [and that I generally agree with].

      I guess I see brand sponsored content and investigative journalism as mutually exclusive. 

      In my imagination I have, for example,..a cereal brand and the cereal company hires a journalist to write an article about…let’s say…nutritional panels on consumer food products.  On the face of it, there is no clear issue of interest here on the part of the cereal brand, however, my cynicism suggests there will be…that following that article there will be advertising about nutrition or pointing to the great informational panel on said manufacturers cereal products.

      As I write I realise that I battle to see a cross over between journalism and commercial branding - if one wants to retain the greater objectivity (albeit personal bias any writer holds) that is required in journalism as we know it.

      So…can you give me examples?  I might better see your point if you can.

    • Susan says:

      02:38pm | 12/07/12

      Oh..to add..would you agree that any journalist should declare they are being paid for any article sponsored or paid for by a commercial enterprise whether the article is product related or not?? I believe that’s been a major issue in radio - fairly declaring the relationship.  Or perhaps if said journalist is already paid by a media company and THAT company is paid for commercial content or some sort - it would be problematic to declare…??

    • Mahhrat says:

      03:11pm | 12/07/12

      @Greg:  Transparecy in journalism, transparency in government.  I’m a fan of transparency in all the public realm, because then I can truly make an informed choice.

      The mere fact that the LNP can crow about the “faceless men of Labour”, and not be sued for defamation is a damning indictment.

    • Greg Barila says:

      11:41pm | 12/07/12

      @Susan, I highly recommend you watch the Social Media Week discussion linked above. It’s a good, deep discussion on this subject, defines the terms and provides several examples of branded content/brand journalism for you to go away and look at for yourself. But we can always continue this discussion on Twitter. My handle is @GregBarila. Cheers

    • Jeremy says:

      09:04am | 12/07/12

      The move of brands towards the internet, social media and entertainment (or fluff) journalism isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Think about the number of journalists, column inches and airtime dedicated by newspapers or channels towards entertainment journalism. If this area is filled by corporate backed PR machines or journalists for hire, then newspapers can redirect their funding away from this fluff and back towards investigative journalism.

      I wouldn’t have a problem with the entertainment news being brought to me by Red Bull, Pepsi or Old Spice - as long as the newspaper or news bulletin focuses on traditional journalism - investigating ideas and stories of importance.

    • Greg Barila says:

      11:38am | 12/07/12

      Really interesting perspective Jeremy. Thanks. I wholeheartedly agree that what we need more of is investigative journalism and coverage of issues that matter and make a difference to people’s lives.

    • Jason Todd says:

      03:44pm | 12/07/12

      I tend to agree. Just once I would like to digest a paper or serious news site without having to be updated about what Katy Perry and Lady GaGa are doing day to day and have it somehow tenuously related to the ‘news’

      Enforce the split! Entertainment news can go one way, real news the other.

    • RobM says:

      09:05am | 12/07/12

      As a journalist (a proper one, not a blogger, PR hack or forum monkey), I follow this simple rule…

      “News is what someone, somewhere doesn’t want you to know… everything else is just advertising.”

    • marley says:

      10:38am | 12/07/12

      Does this mean the sports section is no longer journalism?

    • Greg Barila says:

      11:35am | 12/07/12

      That’s true, RobM, but there is an important discussion to be had around what it means when we use the terms journalism, news and information.

    • Markus says:

      09:18am | 12/07/12

      Nothing you have described is new or revolutionary. The concept of the Advertorial (advertising passed off as a legitimate, objective article) has been around for decades. All the internet has done is allow companies to bypass newspaper.
      I actually consider this to be a lot less dishonest, because not only is it a free medium, meaning people aren’t paying to be advertised to, but it is not a medium where people would not be expecting purely legitimate news (everyone knows the internet is full of junk).

      ‘But information by itself, without analysis or context, no matter how slickly presented, isn’t journalism.’
      Going by the standard of journalistic analysis that passes for news in this country, you’d never know.

    • Greg Barila says:

      11:52am | 12/07/12

      What you describe Markus is exactly what brand journalism is not. According to some of those I quoted above, branded ‘journalism’ is not an advertorial in any sense that we’ve traditionally understood that concept.  Advertising is not the main game here. At least not in any direct sense. It’s far more subtle than that. In some cases the aim is to build a community and build trust. For what purpose? To sell more product. But I think the tools, the method and the thinking driving this kind of content is new.

    • Susan says:

      12:46pm | 12/07/12

      @Greg… Building a community is all about selling product.  That is the bottom line as you admit and against that, no matter how you dress it, It IS an advertorial and your use of the word subtle is apt.

      It’s actually not ‘new’ as in 2012, it’s been going for some time. The ‘Coca Cola Village’ and summer camp have been going for a few years now and indeed social media based advertising has been around more than ten years.

      I think the issue is that more recently, the general public have been accusing media outlets, and then journalists, of becoming advertisers and not journalists and analysts at all.  And in response, some of you folk have been trying to both justify your output and to also figure out precisely where you ‘are’ now in terms of a traditional role definitions.
      That element of analysis is what I pulled out of your post and I think is a large part of defining ‘true’ journalism against an advertorial.

      The public, in the main, are telling you that this product based material isn’t journalism no matter whether you wish to coin the term ‘brand journalist’ or not.  It’s simply dressing up something - like using the term ‘faux’ instead of fake; it just sounds more palatable and a little more prestigious.

      I wish I had kept a copy because there was a blatant piece of advertorial recently on news.com.au.  It started like a more open piece and ended with all manner of contacts for the product range.  How is that journalism?
      Why is that not simply an advertorial?  Because a ‘journalist’ wrote it??  There has to be more to it than that surely.

      If you accept terms like “brand journalist’ and start to include advertising material in media sections originally intended for mainstream news, I think you are in real danger of watering down your profession.  The only thing that will help some of you is that many still come from media ‘families’ and there is a union.  They won’t help for long but at least some from media families will hope for a shift into some other media form.

    • AdamC says:

      09:52am | 12/07/12

      In other words, large corporations are effectively becoming media companies because they have realised the usefulness of media in providing a platform to raise awareness of their products.

      So what? With a few wording changes, you could have said the same thing in the seventeenth century. Being generally ignorant of history (as well as many other things) I am not surprised that a journalist would not be aware of the foundation role advertising played in the development of news. Indeed, advertising predates journalism. The latter was developed to make the former more attractive to audiences.

      The function of journalists has always been, and will always be, to create content to attract the eyeballs and ears of consumers to advertising. So it is not especially novel, indeed, I understand it was commonplace in the early days of television, to effectively ‘insource’ the editorial production that supports a corporation’s advertising. Nothing wrong witt that, advertisers have always paid for journalism.

    • Susan says:

      11:42am | 12/07/12

      Greg,  “But information by itself, without analysis or context, no matter how slickly presented, isn’t journalism. “

      I agree..absolutely.  So, on news.com.au…all the entertainment pieces, all the old articles (months old) revamped to look like today’s news and pieces without any form of investigative analysis, aren’t actually news and there’s no journalism, as such, attached.

      That’s what a raft of Punchers and comments on so-called ‘news’ pieces have been saying for months.  Yet on Punch, when people have asked about the level of investigation and analysis HERE, some writers say they aren’t offering news pieces, but opinion pieces.  On that I think the latter correct, and that’s fine. Punch is quite individual.

      But it is surrounded by a raft of non-journalistic writing and I am at a loss to understand it.

      Is it a move towards a no-news site?  Has news become user-pays but no-one is really saying that overtly yet?  Are some of you as lost as the readers are in terms of understanding where the investigative journalism now resides?  Are your serious pieces of writing being discarded as not ‘social’ enough? 

      I have to laugh as when I was little my father used to watch news on commercial TV, switch to ABC news and then he’d watch an ABC investigative show..and a second if there was one going.  As I got older I used to think..arrrrggghhhh about all the intense topics and viewing behaviour… but now I rather crave news and journalism as it used to be.

      Saying that makes me feel so old and I remember saying to someone that when I actually heard a teen ask “who are the Beatles?” I would know I was finally ancient.  I’m finally ancient.  Of, the humanity.

    • Susan says:

      11:47am | 12/07/12

      @Greg..sorry..should have included this comment in last:

      ““Brand journalism is just telling stories that engage an audience, not unlike what airlines did with airline magazines before digital.”

      Nope…“Brand journalism” is just a euphemism for “advertorial”.

      You may as well become PR marketers if you’re now writing about cereals and any product lines and it’s NOT a reasonable objective analytical piece.

      I honestly don’t know how you can admire your own profession and think it worthy, and tack the term ‘journalism’ on to anything that is simply advertising under another name.

      Foolishly the career sites will start to use these terms and “brand journalist” will become the position de jour and will earn about $10-15 k more a year than a marketer.

      Pffffft.  I spit on such trendy rubbish.

    • Granvillian says:

      02:49pm | 12/07/12

      wheneVer issues like this One Turn up, wE should Look for Insight Before condemNing. Aussie poliTiciaNs wOn’T aLlow Aussie media to Be Overly contRolled by big business, I’m sure.

    • Chris says:

      03:12pm | 12/07/12

      While I am not having a go you Greg, as I don’t know enough about you, I will admit to hating Tabloid Journalism.

      Mind you I don’t like most alternative stuff. I like good, even-handed articles with proper research done. (The whole climate-change thing is a perfect example of many journalists not doing enough research).

      Facts, facts, facts. Not half-truths.

    • john says:

      03:33pm | 12/07/12

      I find companies provided news no more abhorent than that majority of journos getting their artivcles directly from Reuter or AFP.

    • Susan says:

      03:44pm | 12/07/12

      I laughed at the ‘hidden message’ in your post.  Vote LibNat not Labor.  And I don’t think aussie politicians would do much at all…we’ve seemed to move beyond an era where politicians truly cared about objective media.

    • Susan says:

      04:24pm | 12/07/12

      This post was @Granvillian 0.29pm

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:40pm | 12/07/12

      There is an article over at Mumbrella in which a PR openly talks about how PR’s can begin exploiting the current media environment by providing “stories” to overworked, fearful of sacking journalists.

      Gina Reinheart refuses to sign the charter of independence.

      We can’t expect much “journalism” as defined in this piece to be around in the near future.

    • Susan says:

      05:00pm | 12/07/12

      Apt comment and true I think. Sad really.

    • PhoenixGirl says:

      11:36am | 13/07/12

      How is this any different to the current batch of “journalists” that we have. They spend their time spruiking stories that push their own personal political agenda instead of “telling true stories”.

      I don’t necessarily agree with it but find it entirely hypocritical to claim that this “brand journalism” is different to our current level of “journalism”.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter