PSFK Conference

Went to the PSFK conference on Tuesday, which was a lot of fun and a nice break from staring at my computer all day!  I had to duck out for a meeting in the middle, and subsequently took 4 cabs because it was ffffrrreeeeezing!!! 

What I liked best:

Without a doubt, Laurie Rosenwald.  Besides the fact that you could literally feel the creative heat emanating from her, she was also adorable and a fantastic speaker to watch. 

The Media as Creative Agency Panel  was very interesting - panelists were asked to talk about the possiblity of eliminating creative agencies and having the media properties ( editors/founders from Flavorpill, Engadget, and Theme were on the panel) create the ads that would run on their sites.   

Although I'm sure George Parker is a very smart and insightful guy, I think this idea is completely insane,  as well as a total conflict of interest for  bloggers, who really need to be thought of as journalists, not to mention an incredible  resource-drain on these publications.   

Say these media properties were to do as the name of the panel suggests, and use their inside knowledge of their readership to craft effective advertisements that prey on their desires - this seems almost as though they are using what they know as trusted opinion leaders among their audience to essentially sell that audience out.   

I know that media properties give agencies like mine lots of demographic information on their audiences, so that we can create better ads, but for them to take every piece of insider knowledge about their readers, and use it to sell things to them seems like it clashes with journalistic integrity.   

As long as it is known that agencies create the ads in most publications,  readers are still somewhat able to tell the difference between the trusted opinion of a magazine or blog, and the paid advertising - keeping their trust in the publication intact.

The editors of Engadget and Theme obviously felt this way too - I know for a fact that the editors of blogs are constantly asked by marketers to integrate products into their editorial content, which is basically co-opting the blogger's opinion leadership and asking them to jeopardize the trust of their core readership.    ( Flavorpill is sort of a different case, in that they help to create the ads that they feature so they will be aesthetically and ideologically cohesive with their  publication.)

Not many of them actually agree to this unless they truly do believe in the product, but it's almost offensive that companies think bloggers are tripping over themselves to write about their random crap for paltry sums - something that, in the print world, could be considered payola.

A good example of the way that this sort of practice can turn readers off is fashion magazines.  Especially the beauty sections.  Everyone knows that fashion magazines are basically just advertisements, even the editorial parts, but it's really apparent in the beauty sections, where editors will write blurbs about products that they've obviously never even used, sometimes even using language directly pulled from the press release.   

And while this is partly the fault of the editors, it's also ( I think) rather rude of companies to dangle cash or other rewards in front of journalists to sway them.  Especially bloggers, as they are generally not that well paid.

What does everyone else think?  I guess I went off a little bit, but as the perception of bloggers as true journalists continues to permeate mainstream audiences, I think we'll see more shifting in how advertisers approach them with their wares. 

Comments

[Noah Brier]

I don't have as much of a problem with it as you do. In many ways I think that your reputation is yours to lose and you can do with it as you wish (you don't trust anything in fashion mags, for instance . . . meaning the regular advertisers aren't getting a lot for their money and in theory the cost should decrease over time).

What's your take on a site like Heavy who creates almost all the ads on their site so that it better gels with the content?

[amber finlay]

I agree with you there Noah - it is the the journalist's reputation to lose. I think my main issue is that the general readership of a site might have no idea who is creating the ads, and if advertisers are communicating directly with editors, then I think that sort of makes the line really blurry as to what is paid advertising, and what is their opinion.

But i agree with you, if it's an advertiser whose product the blogger/writer stands behind, then there's no problem there.

I just sort of feel that once that bridge is crossed on a site - the property creating ads directly for clients - information about readers that a site has access to - like emails, their submitted tips/comments to the site, and stuff like that will soon be incorporated into the making of the ad, or possible sold as part of a package deal or something.

Heavy...i guess I sort of lump that in with social networking/video sharing, and not editorial, so I havent thought about that, but it doesn't seem to bother me. And it doesn't bother me on Flavorpill either - because they make it clear that this is their practice. It would worry me more if i could pay them to, say, have my event listed (which I am *hoping* they don't do).

Of course, I could just be nuts. But since I started working in this industry, it just seems like more and more things are "for sale".