Most of us have been conditioned as public relations people — and marketing communicators — to believe paid advertising and editorial are separate. I’ve even heard the phrase, “church and state.” For mainstream media, that may be true on some levels. I could put together a pretty good case that local television stations and newspapers should first turn to advertisers when doing an industry-trends or human-interest story not involving hard news. It’s natural; they’re most familiar with advertisers, they need an expert to comment, and it’s not strange to think their good advertisers can be the most credible sources.
On the other hand, should advertisers be given preferential treatment in a negative-news situation — layoff, bankruptcy, etc.? If by definition the story is relevant “news,” no. And, I don’t think an advertiser (just for advertising) should be granted the token “spotlight” story either … It seems like there should be an appropriate angle on something source-relevant.
Bottom line is that there’s nothing wrong with some tie, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of reporting actual news. But to say there’s absolutely no tie … just not true.
With trade media, there is an even more evident relationship between paid space and editorial, and that’s not all bad.
Clients often ask if buying trade advertising will have an effect on the amount of editorial coverage on their products or services. Our answer is typically “yes,” but it’s not as simple as it appears. There is much more to it than “payback” for dollars spent.
Ninety percent of trade media is financed solely by advertising, so there is certainly a hint of loyalty to advertisers. In some ways, maybe there should be. Those companies are “funding the channel,” and if it’s not damaging the editorial integrity of the publication or website (it usually doesn’t), it’s probably okay if they’re covered more than others. In fact, those advertisers are likely the true players in the business, and thus deserve it.
But, not advertising can have a negative effect in many ways — and it’s not that media think they should just ignore “non-advertisers.”
The public/media relations game is twofold. First, you must have something to offer trade-media editors: valuable information, articles, sources, angles, and exceptional imagery — things of benefit to their readership. Remember, trade media largely exists for the betterment of their industry; and that includes betterment of their audience.
In most cases, you may also need to be a “player” at some level for them to take you seriously as a pitch-person or source. Editors are an extension of their audience. If their audience has never heard of you, or thinks you’re a weak competitor, it’ll be hard for the editor to serve you up as a credible expert. The audiences count on editors to provide them with good advice or news on the best products and services on the market … media relations people have to sell themselves as being able to provide that to editors.
So, if a company’s advertising drops or (worse yet) goes away; if they minimize their presence within the industry (associations, trade shows, events); or drop out altogether, they’ll be seen less and less as a force in the trade. The media covers the underdog sometimes, but the committed, established players get most of the ink. Conveying your brand to the media is as important as conveying it to your customers and prospects. Reductions in advertising usually have a negative effect on brand in the marketplace, and the media is part of that marketplace.
Here’s something to consider: If we truly believe in trade publications or websites as valued channels, we must fund them. More advertising means more pages and more updates, which result in more opportunities for editorial coverage.
But also consider this: If you would never advertise with a specific trade-media channel, why would you spend resources or dollars to have a “nonpaid” space in it (and, yes, let’s all agree that PR isn’t completely “free”)? After all, business-to-business marketers select advertising channels based on the qualified audiences they reach … channels for earned editorial should not be much different.
And if there are no advertising dollars, there are no trade media channels. So, the advertising/editorial relationship isn’t taboo. It’s inherent.
Tags: B-to-B, public relations, trade media
Bravo! Well said. Consider also, that if a trade pub is pandering editorial to sell our advertising, will what results be credible to the reader?
Nope.
Consider, would you go to a restaurant if the review is written by the chef? Or buy a car based on a review from the dealer sales manager?
Not viewed as credible, third party observers. And in the end the best thing a trade pub can sell is credibility to its audience. It enhances your message to that audience at every step of the process.
In the end that’s what you buy; credibility with the audience.
Your piece nicely shades the nuanced relationship between editorial and advertising as well as I’ve seen it explained. Kudos.
Ooops first ssentence “our” should be “you”