Cash for access

Once upon a time – but this is no fairy tale – trade papers published news and views. They had editors and other journalists who made decisions about what went into their papers based on a set of independent values and opinions. Those opinions could be influenced. Sometimes they couldn’t. Some editors had their ‘mates’ and close friends, but generally speaking you could see who they were, and who they were not. You knew that if your client wanted coverage, you had to come up with something good. Something that got you noticed.

All of this was mutually beneficial. To get coverage in the right titles you had to produce good lively copy. Major titles didn’t accept anything less. Not only that but it didn’t matter if your client was a start up business or a major established player, they all got treated the same editorially when it came to good ideas and good writing.

That’s all changed. Now it’s the depth of your pocket that decides if you get coverage or not.

Let me state right now that I have nothing against the decision of editors and publishers to charge for content. Advertorial has always been with us. I’d even argue that it has a place, especially for stories with complex or forward thinking ideas. I’m comfortable with the sponsorship of editorial pages. So long as it’s clear, there is nothing wrong with it at all.

Where I start to get uncomfortable is with the fact that editorial should be a level playing field where good ideas, well expressed should win the prizes. In this era of ‘paid for content’ it’s those with the deepest pockets who are able to command the field. Those with significant marketing budgets can buy up the best slots, while clients who don’t have the same clout can’t take advantage. They are priced out of what was once freely available to everyone. With no competition, no need to prove that they deserve to be there by merit alone, the tendency is for such ‘advertorial’ to be bland and corporate. The ‘edge’ and conflict which open and free journalism created – and which made people want to read key titles – isn’t required anymore. Money talks, but all too often it doesn’t say much worthy of close attention.

No surprise then that many clients are doing it themselves. If you’re going to have to pay, why not control every aspect of the content and cut out the piggy in the middle? How independent can that be? But given that many trade titles out there have now surrendered to the need to bring in extra cash, the playing field for ‘corporate content’ is far more level than it used to be.

What price, you might ask, for independence? For the smaller player with tight budgets, it’s far too high, and that simply isn’t fair.

Nigel Lawrence