3 ms·

One idea is to monetize stories submitted by PR firms [1] and clearly label the stories as such. At the same time, keep or increase the quality of such articles

One idea is to monetize stories submitted by PR firms [1] and clearly label the stories as such. At the same time, keep or increase the quality of such articles to make it worth the reader's while. To capture more of the value, the newspaper industry should also create a PR platform (comparable to AdWords) that allows firms to directly and efficiently pitch their products and their social/business impact to the editors. (Cutting out the middleman) It of course should remain at the editor's discretion whether and in what form to print the stories. Increase in transparency (that the story originated from a PR pitch) and monetization opportunity (to pay for investigative reporting) should benefit both the reader and the newspapers. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

ghaff 12y ago
It's called native advertising and it's somewhat controversial. The problem is that, even if it's labeled, it erodes the wall between advertising and editorial. Many magazines have had "special advertising sections" forever, but the more you blend in native advertising, the more readers are likely to confuse your editorial with an advertiser's pitch. Of course, especially in some areas, PR narratives do drive the choice of story (as suggested in your link) a lot of the time. But it's still a slippery slope to rent out column inches for content that purports to be a form of editorial.
- nopinsight 12y ago
  Well, the idea is to make sure the article quality be on par with other editorials. This should include critical commentary and comparison of the product or company in question to its competitors. This would be something quite different from those special advertising sections, which almost always feature only its positive aspects. Since newspapers already publish these articles anyway (without labeling the PR source), the slippery slope is already in action. Although I do agree that money could make things worse for some papers, market mechanisms and transparency could help balance things out.

ghaff 12y ago

It's called native advertising and it's somewhat controversial. The problem is that, even if it's labeled, it erodes the wall between advertising and editorial. Many magazines have had "special advertising sections" forever, but the more you blend in native advertising, the more readers are likely to confuse your editorial with an advertiser's pitch. Of course, especially in some areas, PR narratives do drive the choice of story (as suggested in your link) a lot of the time. But it's still a slippery slope to rent out column inches for content that purports to be a form of editorial.

nopinsight 12y ago
Well, the idea is to make sure the article quality be on par with other editorials. This should include critical commentary and comparison of the product or company in question to its competitors. This would be something quite different from those special advertising sections, which almost always feature only its positive aspects. Since newspapers already publish these articles anyway (without labeling the PR source), the slippery slope is already in action. Although I do agree that money could make things worse for some papers, market mechanisms and transparency could help balance things out.