Social Blurs Media Lines

In the article, "Wanna Buy a Blog?" Ad Age reports Forbes is selling access to its readers by selling advertisers blogs that operate alongside other Forbes blogs.

"This isn't the 'sponsored post' of yore; rather, it's giving advocacy groups or corporations such as Ford or Pfizer the same voice and same distribution tools as Forbes staffers, not to mention the Forbes brand.

'In this case the marketer or advertiser is part of the Forbes environment, the news environment,' said Mr. DVorkin.

The product itself is called AdVoice, and the notion is that in a world of social media, corporations have to become participants and, in a sense, their own media companies. Corporations these days also have to face the practical problem of fewer business reporters left to pitch. 'There's fewer ways to get your message out and that's a fact,' he said."

Will brands buy access? Yes. Will readers react positively? That's entirely up to the brands. AdVoice shows how the lines between paid, owned and earned media are blurring thanks in part to social media.

It seems like a fundamental discussion. It isn't. Beginning to look at your content as part of a paid and earned mix is the first step to integrating all three. But even if you don't, the technology is already integrating it for you. Social media is designed to help us publish, share and syndicate content seamlessly.

New Content Models Needed
In the past, we neatly organized different forms of media in well-divided silos. But social media is messy. It crosses silos to create an ugly Venn diagram. Circles overlap all over the place and no one seems comfortable with it....whether it's on paper, online or within an organization.

Forbes is creating a new revenue stream. This isn't news. This is what we’ve been telling old media they’ve needed to do for some time now. If a brand puts forth bad, self-serving content, they're pissing away their media spend. Readers will gravitate towards good content and they're sure to out anyone trying to masquerade as anything other than themselves.

The benefit of this social media mess is that we've gained a new level of transparency. This isn't the equivalent of consumers losing the separation between church and state. Or old media and brands making a back room deal at the expense of its readers. AdVoice will clearly distinguish its content from editors content according to the article.

"There's a flow of content that's contextual. Anything can appear in any place as long as it's contextual -- that's the web and we are bringing that sensibility to the magazine."

As their options continue to multiply, consumers are becoming more discerning about the media they consume. Contextual media, along with curated media, will continue to morph the already elastic definition of content. Marketers need to understand the various implications and how this impacts their mix of paid, earned and owned media. But at the end of the day, this is more opportunity than challenge.

Comments

[Loki]

I've often stated that one of my favorite things about working in the social media space is the way "transparency happens." No matter what you are hiding, it will get outed like a cell phone photo from Guantanamo. It is only a matter of time before it happens.

When you cannot get away with deception good business practices become paramount should you wish to stay in business.

Nice post, Kevin!

[Kevin Dugan]

>>outed like a cell phone photo from Guantanamo.

I'm adding that to the rotation Loki. Awesome line and thanks for the feedback.It's funny to me how transparency increases, yet we instantly assume the worst when the lines blur. Transparency is increasing and lines are blurring as a result of social technology...not Dr. Evil.

Not that I wouldn't like me some "sharks with friggin' laser beams" and from time to time.

[Hallie M.]

Part of the reason I love social media is that it's supposed to be a free medium that anyone can use and post whatever they want. I'm perfectly fine with people advertising or promoting something but what Forbes is doing seems kind of disingenuous. They're selling their name as a social media endorsement. What happened to the good old days of blogging and Tweeting about some random tangent...

[Chris Osche]

I'm not sure that I completely buy what Forbes is selling. Consider...

Can an advertiser buy exclusivity? What happens when Advertiser X asks for exclusivity in a particular category as part of their larger media buy? (Not unheard of. Anheuser-Busch has been doing it for years w/ the Super Bowl.) Consumers will only see that Ad X has a post promoting their latest innovation. They will not see any competition - via ads, editorial reviews, user comments, etc. Will the next step be "guerrilla blogging?"

If "transparency happens", what is Forbes' level of transparency? Are they willing to allow competing blogs to be posted next to each other? If so that would allow for total transparency, but would probably restrict revenue growth. What PR professional would allow their company to post a blog knowing that a competitor could counter it? Assuming that the posting- and counter-posting were done properly, the perception of an online fight would spread and overwhelm the original message.

What about user comments on an advertisers blog? Isn't that one of the tenants of social media. Brands take a position online and allow consumers to judge them? If Brand X uses AdVoice, can I go online and critique it? That would be transparent.

For "transparency to happen", Forbes must lead the way. My concern is not about the ability to clearly define a post as a paid ad to the consumer. My issue would be with Forbes' ability to set a level playing field.

It will be interesting to see who the first will be.

[Vicki V.]

I think this leads to many interesting questions about not only how does Forbes allow competitors to play fair, but whether readers buy it just because it is in "writing". I think the line between advertorials, articles and ads have been blending for some time. One hopes that Forbes will enforce the differences between them allowing readers to understand that the material has corporate spin on it.

[Kevin Dugan]

Hallie: You're assuming the execution will be misleading. There are plenty of ways to make it not misleading. And if they want to make money in the long term, without eroding their brand, that's probably their goal.

Chris: All good questions. I have to believe they're thinking this through to that degree if they want this to be viable for them in the long term. If the first one out of the gate seems anything less than transparent, something tells me it will either die on the vine as something that never gained traction. Or the community will go all Gap logo on their brand and Forbes will be forced to respond.

Vicki: Again, I think Forbes is smart enough to realize this opp needs to be highly transparent to the reader.

All great adds. Thanks!