Wednesday, October 17, 2007
"Monetizing Content" at The Commercial Appeal
News meets NASCAR as sponsors gain foothold at the CA.
Posted by John Branston on Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 4:00 AM
Those words appeared in tiny type above a small Boyle Investment Company logo and a collection of short news items about commercial real estate in the Sunday business section of The Commercial Appeal two weeks ago. The column is called "Done Deals." Many readers probably paid little or no attention to the sponsorship. But the issue of sponsored news, or "monetizing content" as the CA calls it, is sending a shock wave through the newsroom at 495 Union.
Sources at the CA say sponsorship of an upcoming series of stories about Memphis and world business was scratched after the writer, editor, and other reporters objected. A staff meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 17th.
The reporter, Trevor Aaronson, and the editor, Louis Graham, declined to comment. Flyer sources said as many as 50 newsroom employees signed a petition expressing their concerns about sponsored stories. The story is about business in China and was to be sponsored by FedEx.
CA editor Chris Peck declined to comment about the FedEx sponsorship or the series, which has not yet been published. He did comment about "Done Deals" and the general issue of sponsored news.
"The Commercial Appeal, like most newspapers these days, is looking for ways to monetize content," Peck wrote in an e-mail. "This is part of the new business model that will support journalism in the future. The Web is way ahead of newspapers on this. Online, many ads already are linked directly to particular content."
Peck said there was no expectation by Boyle or the CA that the sponsorship would influence content. "Advertisers clearly understand the value of having their paid messages associated with independently reported, relevant content," Peck wrote. Some newsroom employees apparently do not share that view.
Flyer sources say Peck, Graham, and Aaronson had what is sometimes called a "frank exchange of views" about the proposed sponsorship of Aaronson's series, which involved considerable investment in time and travel expenses by the newspaper. Representatives of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school and resource center in Florida, were called in.
"Two of us on the Poynter faculty, myself and Butch Ward, have had telephone conversations with individuals at The Commercial Appeal," said Bob Steele of Poynter. "We play this role as a guide on ethics issues hundreds of times every year."
Poynter's input was confidential, Steele said. Flyer sources say Poynter sided with the employees who objected.
Three weeks ago Peck and Rob Jiranek, vice president of sales and strategic planning, sent employees a three-page letter on "monetizing content guidelines." The main message was that "we are in a new world of newspaper survival" and looking for ways to "attach ads in print and online to specific stories, features, and sections." The memo said "no longer are there thick, impenetrable walls between the newsroom, advertising, and circulation departments."
"Survival" apparently means big profits. The Commercial Appeal is owned by E.W. Scripps, a publicly traded media company based in Cincinnati. In 2006, its newspaper division, with papers in 17 markets, earned $196 million on revenue of $717 million, for a profit margin of 27 percent. The CA's share of that was not disclosed. On Tuesday, Scripps announced that it is splitting into two separate companies, one focused on lifestyle media, such as HGTV, and the other on local newspapers and television stations.
"The proposed separation is not expected to have a material effect on the day-to-day lives of employees," the company said.
Sponsorship is a relatively new wrinkle in a murky area that includes "special sponsored sections” and “advertorials," or text-heavy advertisements that look like news stories. Such sections have long been a staple of business at the Flyer, Memphis magazine, and national publications. Targeted ad placement, where an ad appears near or next to a particular story or type of story, is also commonplace.
But most newspapers maintain separate advertising and editorial staffs. That is sometimes referred to as a mythical "10-foot wall." Advertisers, of course, are free to complain about sensitive stories, and they sometimes withdraw ads. Sponsorship of specific news reports goes back at least to the 1950s when Gillette and Camel cigarettes were big on sports. The Philadelphia Inquirer has a business feature sponsored by a bank.
Most reporters, however, are comfortable with their employer being sponsored by a collection of advertisers but not their specific reports or stories. Many newspapers, including the CA and the Flyer, are quite strict about what perks their reporters can accept. Bob Levey, a former columnist for The Washington Post who holds the Hardin Chair of Excellence in Journalism at The University of Memphis, said, "News columns should never be for sale or for lease."
Comments (26)
Showing 1-26 of 26
like
dislike
We could call them whores, but then who among us would besmirch an honest, albeit illegal professional, by comparing her to an editor at the CA? In light of Mssr. Pecks recent "editorial" on hidden rules in the workplace, those in the editorial department will either encounter an impenetrable barrier to their career, or be helped out the door. On a side note, in light of the recent division at scripps, Boehne's ass must be the size of the lincoln tunnel, given all the newspaper executives seeking refuge there. Perhaps that location would offer the editorial staff some shelter?
Journalism without investigation is just creative writing. If they did there jobs over there, we would have a reason to buy that paper and they wouldn't have to sell-out.
The difference between content-based web ads and what the ca is doing is that the web ads are keyed on words in the copy, not on the entire story. Nobody's going around saying, "We'll write a nice story about you if you pay us," which is what it sounds like the CA is doing, based on your story and what's on Smart City. It was easy to see this coming... It's just a variation from what was going on in Spokane. That's why Scripps hired the fool. I'm not suprised that Poynter sided with the reporters. It's tantamount to bribery. Another example of why media outlets should not be owned by public companies. Being accountable to the truth takes a back seat to being accountable to the stock holders. Memphis deserves better. Thank the supreme being for the Flyer!
Given the ass-kissing coverage the CA already gives Fedex, what in God's name would this copy sponsored by Fedex read like. The mind boggles. Advertisers already sponsor what's left of this fishwrap. Giving companies greater control over editorial content is the death knell. Bye Bye CA.
The newspaper has reached a new low. Chris Peck once had a lofty reputation in this business. No more.
One wonders what FedEx is trying to cover up by arranging such a special deal with its hometown newspaper. What special arrangements does Fred Smith have with the ChiCom leaders to provide slave labor at airports, for example? And what kickbacks are required to do business in Bejing, and who does FedEx pay them to?
Brian makes a good point, I fear we will not ever read what the reporter discovered while covering FedEx. The term "monetizing content" sends chills down any journalists spine. Is it hard to imagine how that would affect your coverage, knowing your story was "sponsored?" Did the term "chilling effect" ever enter these hacks brains? Or maybe that was the goal from the beginning.
While I've lost respect for the CA management, I've gained it for the people in the newsroom who rose up against this mistake. I hope more newsrooms will have such courage. Those are the kind of people who will save this industry from itself.
With a 27% margin, it doesn't sound as if the Commercial Appeal is in dire straits. People like me have a problem in that they still take the paper out of habit, and/or they are to busy to go to the internet in lieu of the five or ten minutes it takes to scan the orange wrapped paper you see in front of fewer and fewer curbs as time goes by.
You can't honestly believe any "reporter" at the CA discovered anything. They print whatever they are told without checking any of the facts as a manner of operation. The CA is so frequently inaccurate you would have to assume it's by choice. You would stand a better chance of getting factual information playing the telephone game.
I live way out west. I've been a newspaper reporter and editor for 27 years. A Memphis friend who is now a freelance photographer and who once worked for the CA sent me this link. We e-mailed back and forth about the death of ethics in this business. Convenient for editors like Chris Peck (who I once worked for in Spokane, WA) to say the Web and all the on-line competition is driving these creepy content decisions. And WTF? What kind of "1984" speak is "monetizing?" Sadly though, Peck is not alone in his squishy ethical place. Y' know, if your paper can't afford to send a reporter to some far-flung destination, just don't do it. Seems pretty simple to me, but then I'm just a journalist who really does see a few things in black and white terms. Still.
This should not come as a big surprise to anybody. Joe Pepe - CA Publisher - is really nothing more than a bad salesman. Peck is just doing what he has to do to keep a job. Pepe has tossed out any validity or objectivity of content in favor of the dollar bill. I listened to Pepe speak at a community event and realized that his view of journalism is shallow. Once he makes his quick buck he will leave our community with an empty shell newspaper. Very sad.
Joe Pepe was handpicked by Mark Contreras at Scripps corporate. Pepe, Contreras, and Boehne are the ones putting the squeeze on Chris Peck. I can't believe Peck would be doing this if he had a choice.
Everything is a choice and considering the career damage done by throwing away your professional respect, he has made an interesting one.
You're right, TK. Peck did choose. But I still firmly believe Joe Pepe is at the root of all this. And notice that he's letting Chris take all the heat. Where is Pepe's explanation?
The CA has been shading its editorial content in favor of its advertisers for years, and that's been pretty obvious. No wall, 10 foot, Chinese or otherwise, is going to prevent a writer from knowing which side of his bread the butter's on. As an example, just last week the paper reported that a class action lawsuit against one of its perennial advertisers had been "dismissed" by a judge (the implication being that the advertiser had won the case), but omitted the essential fact that the dismissal was actually pursuant to a settlement agreed to by the advertiser with the plaintiffs in the case, with no attempt made to determine, or report on, the details of the settlement. This was a serious omission of fact, which the paper had to be aware of when they published the piece (they got the information they selectively published from a public filing that included information about the settlement), and to which I called their attention, suggesting that a correction was appropriate, but none (to my knowledge) was ever issued. SSDD.
Peck is good news man he is just caught in the middle of a money grab. The CA punted when they brought in Pepe and let him add Jiranek. You will see Jiraneks name in the story line and the memo. Google Jiranek and see what he did to his former business partners. Once you understand Pepe and Jiranek you will understand why Peck is the pawn stuck compromising his lifes work.
Wonder how this would have played out if Otis Sanford were still managing editor? Otis would have stood up to Chris from the beginning. Peck shoved Otis out of the way because he wouldn't go along with the CA's games. Pepe created a position for Otis because he couldn't afford to lose the only minority in top management.
This story probably wouldn't even be occurring if Otis were editor. That they chose Peck over him still boggles my mind. Why bring in a carpetbagger over someone who understands the city and its history -- and has the respect of his staff?
B - the answer is basic. Pepe is not a true Publisher. He has bounced from city to city as a "Publisher" bringing his failed plans along with him. If he had talent he would not have been shoved out of so many jobs. It is very rare to see a true Publisher change companies. Pepe does it every 4 years. One more to go for Memphis.
There are many people for sale at the CA--and not just news story writers. Ethics are non-existent at CA. There are some dirty secrets there. Monetizing content is not the only story.
The CA has long been in the business of creating so-called advertorial copy, albeit more suttle in the recent past. For example, just read their annual Black Friday story in the following Saturday's editions with the obligatory mentions of large crowds, low prices, and great values in CA-advertisers' stores. No news, just retail hype designed to hopefully drive shoppers into these individual local outlets. Remember, this is the same management mentality that brought you the big turmoil of Y2K spread, a.k.a. The Event That Never Was; the in-print bashing of St. Jude; and the federal conspiracy involving the shooting death of MLKJr. As has been said many, many times before: "If you ever saw what goes on inside their 495 Union offices, you'd never read their newspaper!" Is it any wonder that former readers are being driven to electronic media outlets by the thousands? Even with the CA's secret readership surveys and high-dollar consultants, the readers just keep slipping away. And BTW, the local real estate community represents the newspaper's largest advertising sector, and over the years they have always gotten the lions share of good-news free ink...with the bad-news stories kinda buried in the back.
The firewall between the advertising department and the newsroom should remain impenetrable. Advertisers should under no circumstances direct an agency's news content. About 15 years ago, I worked as a staff reporter at a small newspaper in Alabama. After the ad manager died unexpectedly, I was told that I would fill that position. I wouldn't relinquish the news reporting duties - I would be tasked with both jobs. I soon found myself at constant loggerheads with several advertisers who tried to manipulate and direct our news content. A few dangled full page ads over my head if I would just write a story about their business or some other topic that would benefit or please them - using the angle they wanted. At that time, even a small rag in rural Alabama had journalistic integrity. First and foremost, I was a journalist. I never allowed advertisers control what and how I reported. That stand lost us some advertisers, but our publisher stood behind me. If a news agency does not have credibility and integrity, they have nothing. I have sadly watched the degeneration of mainstream journalism and news reporting over the past decade. It seemed to start during the O.J. Simpson murder trial coverage, and has steadily devolved since. Today, network and local TV anchors are young, blonde and busty, and we can expect 24-hour news channels to keep us up-to-date on such essential 'need-to-know' stories as the latest Britney Spears meltdown
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
