Writelife

While in a very broad sense I would say there is some accuracy to the term “brand journalism,”  when I first saw a reference to it my hair stood on end. If you’ll pardon the language, it struck me as the usual marketing horse manure.

This is going to be a rambling, long-winded hodge podge of an entry. Sorry!

Why are they using this term rather than advertising or the more broad term, marketing? Because in this context it sounds new and, again in this context, journalism doesn’t have the same negative cache as those words. As well, when you’re doing the same old thing, affixing a new term creates the illusion you’re doing something different.

But horse manure is horse manure.

The term journalism is accurate here in some ways because, yes, there is a story involved and one that will be told, one way or another. And on reflection, maybe it has greater accuracy than I’m supposing because it’s journalism in the sense that we’re in an age where, perhaps more than others, there are those who want to control the stories we hear (i.e., the war in Iraq). That seems to be a lot of what journalism is about these days - control.

But just as Seth Godin points out in his post titled Brand Journalism, no one controls the story, try as they might. (Seth: “The marketer doesn’t get to run the conversation.”)

Trying to control it generally makes things worse for those attempting to. The you-know-what smelly stuff rises to the surface. As Seth seems to suggest, what you can control is who you are and how you behave. But the public is the jury and they will decide what your story is and, more to the point, its merits. (In the case of a company, the marketplace decides).

I’m a bit all over the map here because for me a couple of issues crop up when I see this “brand journalism” term. The first has to do with the idea of journalism and control. For me, this is always a troubling notion. The second is about marketing, advertising, branding … whatever we want to call it this week. The story of McDonald’s and “brand journalism” seems to me to really be about the recognition that one size does not fit all. As we’ve learned from the Web, the more direct and personal you are, the more specific and targeted your message is, the more likely you are to strike a positive note with your intended audience. And I think this is becoming true of other advertising media (where they are not going the way of the dinosaurs.)

What connects these two issues (journalism and marketing) is truth and the irony we see that the more you try to control it, the less likely you’ll be able to. In fact, it can fly out of your control faster than a hair trigger pistol when your message has false notes within it.

Terminology can and does change every day. If the McDonald’s story signals an end to mass advertising and the embracing of an approach more “… multidimensional, multilayered and multifaceted …” then we can be sure that in a few years it will shift back again. With new terminology, of course.

But regardless of how you’re doing your advertising, traditionally or in an innovative way, truth will be an essential element. And if you try to finesse that, if you try to “spin” it, there’s a very good chance you’ll get your bum kicked good. If I’m a consumer and I want to know the price of your product, don’t try to change the conversation and bamboozle me by telling me about the pretty colours it comes in. Don’t try to control "the story." (Does anyone believe "brand journalism" means anything other than controlling the information we get and how its presented? At least when it’s called advertising we know it means horse manure.)

I hope some this meandering post has made some sense. I don’t think I’ve quite got my thoughts in order on this one yet. But I kind of get a little crazy when I start hearing marketing people talking about “journalism.” Let’s stick to Seth’s term "conversation."

Listen to this podcast

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites