Media Branding and Media Marketing: Conflicts with Journalistic Norms, Risks of Trial and Error

In fact cable networks have led the way in innovation of social-media platforms. As an example, MTV worked with Twitter to originate custom interactive experiences for its Video Music Awards, like an MTV Twitter Tracker site that encouraged viewers to tweet about celebrities.

Functionality and thus the format counts. Whether a broadsheet “automatically” signals high journalistic quality compared to a tabloid format, is to a certain degree a question of habits and cultural tradition. Whoever has been trying to read a broadsheet in a fully occupied plane or on a windy balcony is at least aware that in some situations broadsheets are not very reader friendly—the big format is mostly a tribute to the “other”, more important customers of the print media, the advertisers.

Cole and Greer (2013) proved in an experiment what media practitioners have known instinctively for years: readers trust material written in a journalistic format more than they trust advertising. Even if an article is clearly marked as advertorial or sponsored, it doesn’t change the readers’ perception about the subject presented in the article very much. From an advertiser’s point of view it sounds almost as an invitation to use that style of publication more frequently in their marketing mix. From a journalistic standpoint, however it raises even more questions about ethics and potentially decreasing credibility. These research results certainly challenge what some media professionals considered an acceptable ethical compromise—even by clearly marking the sponsored material as such, in the long run the damage for the brand can be great. Howe and Teufel (2014, pp. 78–90) tried to find out how native advertising affects credibility in different age groups. They claim that the type of advertising will have minimal effect (less than 10 % variation in attitude between those who saw a banner and those who were exposed to a native ad) on the readers’ perception of credibility. Yet, according to this study, not surprisingly participants noticed advertising less when it was presented in the form of native advertising than when it was presented as banner advertising. Younger participants were more likely to spot advertising in general, including native advertising. The younger participants also evaluated news media generally as less credible than their older counterparts. Another study confirms—once again not surprisingly—early research which (Baerns, 2004; Baerns & Lamm 1987) conducted long ago: the effect of sponsored content is dubious. Those who realize the difference bypass it right away, or they find it significantly less credible than “real journalism”. And those who don’t recognize it right away but find out about the sponsored content later, feel cheated (Disselhoff, 2014; Lazauskas, 2014).

To put it more pointedly: the most plausible reason why so many youngsters consult free sheets and free websites instead of subscription news sites of a high profile may be that nobody has taught them what the extra value of a quality news site might be, and why it might be worth spending 2.50 Euros on a newspaper rather than on a cup of coffee.

In this light, it is surprising how many publishers and media managers refuse to see that exactly what they had offered to advertisers in the past (and quite profitably so)—an “environment” of high-quality journalism to promote products and services by advertising—could serve equally well to secure their own future. Manufacturers of cars, fashion goods, or computers can all expect their ads to be more effective if combined with media content that attracts the attention of a large audience and deals directly or indirectly with the products promoted. They are also well aware of this relationship; they know their products are more likely to be perceived positively if they advertise through “serious” channels where the content is created by independent journalists with a firm belief in journalistic quality and with the resources, professional skills and ethics to offer such quality.

It is hard to tie independent online content to a physical product of a completely different nature, thus the bundling here comes in a slightly unusual form. The readers get access to more articles for just being in the café. Starbucks, in terms of brand image, is a match for The New York Times—both sides support each other’s brand reputation and benefit from each other: Starbucks is a place where educated youth and busy professionals come to get their snack and drink, and The New York Times wants to reach out exactly to this target group. Lonely customers, surfing the net and reading news to fill their solitude are not a rarity in Starbucks lounges, and the NYT is ready to capture their attention during that time-slot. The extra revenue from content distribution at Starbucks is not directly correlated to the amount of food and drink purchased in the coffee shops. The cooperation between the two partners is conducted on a different level: the newspaper benefits indirectly by positioning its brand in an attractive, suitable environment, while Starbucks gains by attracting readers to spend more time and money in their cafés. Neither the editorial team of The New York Times feels the pressure to positively cover Starbucks, nor does Starbucks oblige itself to sell subscriptions.

Except that unbundling may increase the debates inside the newsroom about fair pay: should finally click rates determine journalist’s compensations? But this question has nothing to do with branding. Unbundling will, however, provide new opportunities to individual journalists to create their own communities and to brand themselves under the umbrella of their media brand.