Newspapers have been writing 'branded content' for years — they just weren't charging for it
Reporters have plenty to be frustrated about. What should top the list, however, is the slow pace with which their publications are producing ads for clients. And we don't mean designing display ads for print or web — that's bare-minimum service.
We're talking about producing topnotch content, regardless if we call it native, sponsored, or branded.
Over the weekend, The New York Times ran a full-page job posting for a new series it's calling "Surfacing." The editorial resident, the Times said, will be "responsible for reporting on the kind of cultural phenomena that our readers revel in discovering."
At the bottom of the page was this: "Supported by Véa Snacks."
So what's Véa getting in exchange?
According to Media Post, "The Véa/Times partnership will also include branded content produced by The New York Times’s T Brand Studio: six videos, each of which will focus on one of the 'wholesome ingredients' in Véa snacks."
In other words, the Times will be producing a type of advertisement that newspapers have been writing for years. The difference today is they'll actually get paid for it.
Yes, the development of branded content over the years is very nuanced. But at the heart of it is the idea that consumers appreciate relevant content — no matter who pays to produce it. If that content is even tangentially related to a brand, you have a really effective form of advertising.
And this should sound familiar to us.
Reporters have always sought out experts as sources. A story about data breaches might include a cyber security consultant; a story about the latest housing market report will include a Realtor or two.
Reporters are really good at connecting company and consumer. Newspapers should have been leveraging that all along, particularly before losing so much of their talent.
Time will tell if news outlets can mitigate the damage of waiting too long. For the sake of both the news industry and advertising — I hope they do.