When it comes to pay for play, everyone's doing it

It's one thing when the Department of Defense pays for "good news" stories to run in Iraq newspapers. You might assume that they just don't know any better. Or maybe they figure that since its "over there" we don't care.

But one would thing that within our own industry rags, we'd do better. But then I got today's "Daily Dog" -- a daily email from the folks at Bulldog reporter.  I'm not wild about yet another bunch of reconstituted press releases clogging up my in box, but what really got me today was the major feature story penned by Peter Wengryn, president and CEO of VMS. Don't get me wrong, I like Peter and have no argument with what he's writing. However, VMS is a very prominent sponsor of the Daily Dog. And, because it is a natural assumption that if you are willing to sponsor The Daily Dog, you get to write a feature story -- I will now question the reliability and credibilty of the rest of the publication -- just as Iraquis will now question all the good news stories they see.

When will folks realize that pay for placement will ultimately hurt you more than it helps?

Comments

[Edward O'Meara]

What to do?

As a reader, we could simply stop reading in protest, write letters or blog against the practises.

Meanwhile, as marketeers, we watch while our friends, clients and competitors pay to play, ringing the register and padding the 401k along the way.

Can we resolve these ethical pangs while remaining successful "marketers"?

I agree that it's infuriating to be offered a speaking slot at a CMO Magazine conference as part of the $100,000 sponsorship package, or an industry Advisory Board invitation as part of the Presidents-Circle corporate membership fee, or a ceo roundtable slot moderated by a Fortune Magazine Senior editor as part of the ad buy. And, we swallow hard when we realize the best way to get a by-lined article published in your favorite magazine is to play golf with the Publisher (or if you're really in need of objective ink, offer to bring along the media planner, and no doubt the Publisher will find a cub reporter to round out the foursome).

The average reader or viewer wants to believe that high visibility media exposure and coverage is a result of credible reporting or verified expertise. But just below the hard news surface, that is bullocks. In this industry, the talk is of sales tools, cross-promotion, content integration and value-ad deals.

So, who is wrong? the publisher that sells it? or the advertiser who buys it? or the copywriter that writes it? or the reporter who chips short? And, what shall we do about it? Launch a sponsor-less conference to debate it?

Not everyone can afford to up and buy a Starbucks franchise to start over... but it is something I think about every time I say No Thanks.