-
Website
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/ -
Original page
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/preserve-your-authenticity-and-stay-transparent/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Why?
Because I’ve done my time building trust with you so if you tells me somebody is okay, that works for me.
Product placement works on the same platform of implied trust.
If you, Chris Brogan, like a product, based on my experience with you and the standards I know you demand, I’m able to make a pretty quick assessment about the quality of that product. If it’s something I need, I’m more likely to try it if somebody I trust is using it.
If, over the course of time, this logic fails a few times, I’m less likely to trust your judgment, and while I still may enjoy the pictures you put on your blog, I may not be so quick to eat the same brand of frozen waffles as you.
Whether you disclose your business association with the product or not, I’m choosing to try it because I trust you. Once I try something however, it’s got to stand on its own merits.
I assume if somebody is associating themselves with a brand, they’re likely being compensated. If you or any other public person is silly enough to trade your reputation for money by pimping an inferior product, YOUR brand value will diminish accordingly and eventually the public will shift their trust elsewhere.
Tell me, don’t tell me…I don’t care. In the end, good stuff and high quality will endure.
The future of product placement will probably make the Reese's Pieces appearance in Steven Spielberg's "E.T." -- and what's come since -- look positively quaint.
Since digital television (and digital content distributed via the Internet) will soon become the standard in U.S. homes -- and since we can assume that the devices on which we consume that content will become more and more "intelligent" -- we'll likely see a viewing experience arise where consumers can opt-in to display the names and prices of all salable items seen in the entertainment they ingest. Think of it as a overlay of information identifying a hero's jacket (for instance), its brand, and even how to electronically order it from a corporate partner such as Amazon ... probably with the click of a remote button.
It'll be a boon for advertisers and product placement deals, and may usher in a new breed of seemingly ad-free (but very ad-supported) content. If the 30-second spot is dying on the vine (as Joseph Jaffe claims), then embedded "metadata" commercials may its successor.
Hailing from a traditional journalism background, I'm awfully hardcore about advertisements being clearly labeled as such in the news we experience. Call me old fashioned, but I feel the credibility of the news provider is as risk when it's not transparent about its on-screen (or on-page) revenue sources. Incidents like the "coffee cup" placement you mentioned in your post blur that mission-critical "church and state" line between Editorial and Advertising, a big no-no in ethical journalism as we've known it.
If any industry should be forthcoming about its ad revenue, it should be the news business. If our perceptions define our reality (which they do), why risk credibility with a perceived conflict of interest?
The topic of indie content creators being equally forthcoming is dodgier, since we're not beholden to the same formal ethical guidelines. However, I believe that -- especially if the creator is being monetarily rewarded for his coverage or content -- adding a disclaimer to such posts gives audiences the proper context and transparency required to fully understand the content.
And it's dodgier still when one wants to help a pal by endorsing their work for no monetary reward. We all know my meaning; the informal back-scratch. In these instances, we have only our personal ethics ... and our commitment of honesty to our audiences ... as our guide. Developing a personal ethical guideline for such content -- and remaining committed to it -- is the best defense to avoid the indie creator equivalent of the "coffee cup" debacle, and the spoiled credibility it represents.
Fascinating post, dude. Excellent work as always.
Like you said, I think product placement in entertainment like movies and tv is totally acceptable. In fact, I prefer it. I think using incorporating brand products makes the scene more realistic. In real life we use brands and interact with/about them. Plus I love trying to guess how much the brand paid to get the spotlight.
TV will literally sell you anything regardless of whether it has been proven in a court of law to be a fraud or the FDA says it's bunk or whatever. There is no morality at all in TV, as much as we like to think it's just an annoyance it is teaching us that if you have enough money to make a commercial you can out and out lie and it's ok.
What struck me about your post was your desire that “the news is as authentic as possible” and in the same sentence acknowledging product placement exists in TV and movies.
In my head, that’s the connection broadcast executives want you to make to excuse their behavior (and please note I did not say news directors, an important clarification I’ll explain in a moment).
First let’s address the standard you’ve set: news is as authentic as possible. I understand what you are saying but your bar, I think, is set too low.
My position is that mainstream media news was authentic, presenting the facts in an unbiased way in newspaper, radio and television and letting the viewer decide their opinions.
It has been disappointing for me to watch that practice be whittled away through woefully lax news gathering and editorial standards (especially at the local level) brought about primarily by business executives making decisions that should be made by news professionals. This isn’t about liberal or conservative bias. It should be “just the facts, ma’am,” as the Dragnet character Sgt. Joe Friday was find of saying.
But viewers get bored in the age of fast cut editing and video games. Research shows news should be a mixture of information and entertainment. That’s a bad mix for folks with no filter in place upstairs (more on that in a moment too).
When corporations starting running networks and newspapers like any other business (and networks and newspapers are not) primarily to please bottom line focused share holders, authentic news presentation was a concept hoisted overboard without a life jacket.
Which brings us to sponsor-logoed coffee mugs on the news set. Upsetting? Controversial? Well if you consider that on their early morning shows and early p.m. news shows, most local affiliates featured their paid advertisers in a segment at some point during a week, the logo mug thing is a wash. Sometimes sponsors have been identified in such news segments, sometimes not. Separation between news and sales….narrowing fast.
So we’ve been long exposed to product placement in news, this most recent logoed cup example is only a little more blatant or maybe even transparent. Sort of like when college age children first smoke in front of their parents when everyone knows they’ve been smoking since they were 15 years old.
The news-product placement horse has long ago left that starting gate.
News consumers should be pissed but they’re not. In fact they are embracing other news gathering tools like blogs and often absorbing information there as unbiased truth because often they subscribe to blogs whose content they agree with. No ying and yang, no point - counter point.
Offering the suggestion that social media content providers remain authentic is a great reminder that I think will likely fall on understanding yet long deaf ears.
There is either no filter in most consumers minds anymore or the filter is long over due for a cleaning. Yikes!...either way.
Best always,
- Peter
Where do we draw the line? And how?
Reading this poast reminded me of something that I read in the book "Pattern Recognition" By William Gibson. (I will not put any plot spoilers in this comment.)
The main Character is talking with a secondary character.
The secondary character is a attractive woman, and she tells that main character that she has been hired by a company to go places where she is likely to be engaged in conversation by other people (coffee houses, bars, etc).
The company that hires her (based on her physical appearance in this case) to perform a service.
That service = when a person organically engages her in conversation she should talk to them, maybe even flirt a bit, and then (this is how she earns her money) drop the name of a product / service that the company that hired her creates / produces / provides.
The secondary character talks about how this provides a bigger ROI than any other form of advertising does.
I had two reactions to reading this.
1. Hot shit & happy damn! That is brilliant!
2. Damn it! Now whenever somone who I meet talks about a product / service I'm going to wonder if they are being paid to do this.
(Example: If I were someone else reading this comment I'd wonder if I -the writer of the comment- had been paid by the company that published "Pattern Recognition" to talk about it in this blog post.)
(Side Note: I'm not beign paid by any publishing company.)
@chrisbrogran -- This makes your idea of a disclaimer page a bit more interesting, eh?
-N
Your post hit home with me. Independent news media plays a vital role in our society as the public's watchdog. I would hate to see news media become just another profit center for greedy corporations (and individuals).
-Allen
I was wondering who was getting the "placement" in your photo: you, B&N, or Starbucks!
Maybe a take-away is that along with being transparent, it's good to be clear too. :)