The world of public relations is sometimes confused with advertising. At my own educational institution, they refer to my track as "PRAD" or "PR and Advertising." However, there is a distinct line of separation that most professionals can agree on. As you may recall in my last post, I used the analogy of advertising as me saying I'm a great lover. Now, if someone else says I'm a great lover, then that's public relations. The difference is the third person perspective.
The third person perspective is what public relations relies on for credibility. The public looks to the media for an unbiased, outsiders' perspective to the information. However, the Los Angeles Times recently ran an advertisement for the new NBC show "Southland" on the front page in the style of a newspaper editorial. 
The advertisement, that was purposely styled to look like a legitimate news article, had minimal indication that it was for NBC. There was a separate banner that was clearly marked as "Advertisement" but the editorial itself only had a NBC logo.
While I understand the cleverness of placing an ad on the front page and designing it as if it was a legitimate news article, it crosses an ethical line when it comes to advertisement. Advertisement is intended to be clearly marked as such. Fingers could be pointed at public relations practitioners for the impact they have on the news with their influence. There's one big difference: our influence is words, not money. 
An ethical public relations practitioner crafts a concise message that is mutually beneficial for the journalist and the client. The journalist uses his own objectivity to filter the information he receives to what he sees as important to the public. The client, in turn, receives a credible third person perspective. When the ads begin looking like news items themselves, it looks bad for both the advertising industry and the public relations industry. Transparency is key in this business since people must be able to trust the information they are receiving. 
When an Ad is Not an Ad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't really see how this crosses an ethical line. Because it's on the front page? Newspapers have used "advertorials" for years. Maybe you've never noticed because they're usually tucked away inside of the paper. The fact of the matter is newspapers are dying and they are going to do whatever the can to remain on life support. I for one admire the ingenuity of the paper as well as NBC for putting this marketing material front and center.
There are far more serious and egregious displays of unethical PR than this, particularly in the world of Internet marketing. Spamming, astroturfing, and sockpuppeting are just a few of the ways that people are being manipulated online.
Why is it that we industry observers always assume that news readers are incapable of seeing the "Advertisement" label on advertorials? If you'll stop and ask the next ten people if they've ever seen a "Special Advertising Section" in the news or in a magazine, they'll confirm it. It doesn't take a genius. What's more, most readers are NOT put off by advertorial if you ask them about it, because they feel it's clearly marked and because sometimes it's interesting to read.
The LA Times and others should be applauded for their testing of the waters, for daring to say "Why not?" If Google can sell its top listings on search results, why shouldn't news publications serve up the same logic? In the online world, it's already happening and the result is not total devastation of the public news system. If anything, it's decidedly positive, as people interact with sponsored content in much the same way as they do editorial content (we can track their behavior online, so we know it's true). Again, as long as it's interesting and transparent about the source, people will consume the information.
Dana Todd, CMO
Newsforce Network
www.newsforcenetwork.com
Post a Comment