Could long-tail news kill advertorial?

Ed Cone writes about those insidious real-estate advertorials that run in virtually every newspaper in the country. Here in Dallas, they also run for car dealers.

That set me to thinking: Why do the accursed things exist anyway?

IMHO:

1. Journalists hate them.
2. Nobody reads them. (The one exception I've seen is in trade rags where the only advertorial allowed is a substantive piece that is labelled as an ad not because it shills, but because it is paid for.)
3. They don't bring any credibility to the advertiser. (Exception, see #2)
4. Save for misguided vanity, the only value they have is in getting the brand name mentioned and (perhaps) into the consciousness of the readers.

So why do they exist?

Because in the finite space of an analog edition, the groundbreaking of "Hobbs Landing," or the factory service award won by the local VW shop isn't big enough to be news.

But in a long tail environment, it is. The groundbreaking  is news to the folks in that neighborhood and to people shopping for a home. And it can be pushed to those folks as such. And, if the development plan is bad or the service at the dealer is actually sorry, a journalist (citizen or professional) can pick up that angle.

(Ironically, most newspapers run this stuff in the print edition, but omit it online.)

In fact, I would argue that this sort of stuff is pretty much at a distance down the long tail comparable to the elementary school (but not city) spelling bee championship and the neighborhood crimewatch. The only difference is that right now the realtor can afford to buy her way into the game while the spelling champ's dad can't.

This particular musing is admittedly still half-baked, as it was concoted while playing fetch in the rain with our dogs, so I'd welcome some input. It seems to me, though, that we're out of the business of determining what is news (everything is); and into the business of figuring out what news is most relevant to whom.

One nagging question: If you're giving the realtor the milk for free?...

Now playing: Living Colour - These Are Happy Times [#]

---

UPDATE: As an afterthought-- If every ad is a relevant ad, then aren't ads content? And if everything is news in the long tail environment, then what is advertising?

I and a glass of scotch are going to think on that and get back to you.

But I've been saying this for a while: as fascinating as this Brave New World is to the editorial folk, I think the advertising minds best get engaged in it -- and fast.

---

UPDATE to the UPDATE: My glass(es) of scotch reminded me that the lack of real engagement of the business side in this conversation is a primary reason for our existence. Duh.

Nothing to see here. Return to you own particular business paradigm.

Comments

[Jeff Harrell]

Let us not underestimate the entertainment value of advertising. This is more the case in stuff that moves — television, cinema — but it's also fundamentally true of print advertising.

A bad ad is a ball-peen hammer to the back of the skull: effective, but intrusive and unpleasant for everybody involved. (See your average Westway Ford piece.) A good ad is a canapé, a little something wonderful that just happens to be wrapped around a commercial message, like a sliver of prosciutto wrapped around a melon cube.

What this has to do with anything, I have no idea. But as with all things, I have an opinion, and I just love to hear myself talk.

[Scott Chaffin]

As a business guy, I see a disfunctional relationship all round. The business guys get whipped for messing with journalism, and (most) journalism guys don't want to hear about business. If business gets engaged, the howls will pierce eardrums for a 100 mile radius. Witness the recent Belo madness. Biz people love what Decherd is doing, journos hate it. Well, I hate slash-n-burn too, but having been slashed and burned myself, I know it happens to every industry in the world.

But I've never worked in advertising, so what do I know? But I am sober -- for now. heh heh

[Joe Zekas]

The fact that news releases are not artfully written, lack credibility by the standards of traditional journalism, and often reflect poorly on their subjects’ credibility, is irrelevant to the question of whether they’re news to some folks.

In the context of a real estate section, this stuff is not, as you state, “pretty much at a distance down the long tail.” Finding it, and the rest of the advertising in the section, is the very reason that readers have searched out this section.

The advertiser is also not, as you seem to think, getting “the milk for free.” The advertorial space comes at a price that often heavily milks the advertiser.

Focus on what’s really at issue here, and you’re likely to find a business model in it. People are willing to pay to publish personal and commercial messages in the right venues. And other people are seeking out venues that package those messages in a convenient way, and overlook the stupid promotional elements in the messages.

[Peg]

Joe:

I think you missed my point:

I'm suggesting that this material is news, and that in a long-tail newsroom, there's no need for it to be done as advertorial, which I certainly understand is paid. It IS news. However, because it is "advertorial," most readers ignore it because it lacks credibility. If you have data to the contrary, I'd be very interested.

And even if serious seekers will read the advertorial, it doesn't help with the casual seeker, which is often the holy grail for certain classes of advertisers. Take employment ads for interest -- I've found that they're often willing to pay a premium to find the reader isn't actively looking for a job. I can see that playing out across many categories.

Again, I'm not saying that advertisers get the milk for free with advertorials; but, in our model, what they used to have to pay to get covered in a limited analog edition becomes news. Actually, even News. And they won't have to pay for it, because we're not ever going to let ad-driven gatekeeping get between us and what readers want/need. But, I still want money out of 'em, money I think we can get through other vehicles. The question was largely rhetorical.

Advertorial is rarely convenient. And I don't believe (m)any readers "overlook the stupid promotional elements in the messages." But lots of smart people disagree with that.

Keep following us and chiming in. We need as many voices in the conversation as we can get.

[Bruce]

Peg,

I've got SO many relevant thoughts on this, as I spent almost 10 years as an advertorial type. There are so many questions raised by this topic that I simply cannot begin to break them down at 1:42 a.m. But I want to ruminate and get back to yas on it.

I will say this: under the right circumstances, this area is not only a cash cow, but as you astutely recognized, it *is* news. What's the difference in recognizing someone named top salesman of the month at a car dealership and someone hitting a hole in one or a story on a girl's basketball game? Most people are not interested in it, but SOME are. And in my understanding of the enlightened, inclusive world of the Peg, inclusion is what it's all about.

I fucking *begged* to do some of this content at the AMJE, but it fell on deaf ears. It probably wouldn't have made a difference, but I guarantee that there's gold in them thar hills....

[Lex]

Why DON'T more business types get involved? I'm a newsie, but that question really does puzzle me because their asses, and jobs, are on the line too.

Right now, the newspaper bidness is addicted to a delicious business model that has made a lot of mediocre families and corporate execs wealthy. Just one problem: Long-term, it is not supportable; there's simply no way news organizations are going to be able to continue to maintain the kind of profit margins they're used to in the new environment. Won't. Happen.

Most business-side types don't know this, even though news types have been screaming it for at least a decade. Those few who do know it are, by and large, planning to continue milking it for the few short years 'til they can retire or at least salt a good bit away, then leave the business for someone else to worry about.

But if I were, say, a 25-year-old ad rep or supervisor for a newspaper, I'd be working right now to figure out how to make a new business model that works, because the first person to do it will become the William Randolph Hearst of the digital age. Or something.

[Joe Zekas]

Peg,

I think your response to my post misses my point as well, and reveals that, despite all your efforts, you’re still filtering the world through a fog of old media concepts: News, news, advertisers, credibility, advertising, etc.

Bruce’s comment is pointing you in the direction of a viable business model and hinting at some important points. I agree with Bruce that this question is complicated, and will follow his lead in simply ruminating on the subject.

An advertorial / pay-to-publish approach is not “ad-driven gatekeeping” that gets in the way of “what readers want / need.” It’s an imperfect but very effective means of screening the content you expose to your readers and validating the categorization of the content and the identity of those who are presenting it. Craigslist is learning this lesson and acting on it by beginning to charge for postings in more and more categories. Fail to do this and the enterprise’s very success becomes the engine of its doom.

Advertising / advertorial contains nuggets of information that some readers want. If a home builder publishes a 1,000 word news release, almost all of which is incredible puffery, interested readers quickly extract the facts they want: new homes are being built in an area they want to live in at a price that appears affordable. Charging the builder to publish this information in a category that readers elect to visit is a service to the readers: it filters out the endless garbage you’ll otherwise generate if you’re attracting an audience. Allowing the builder to publish the information in a format the builder believes to be effective is a service to the publisher / builder.