Advertorial! Why are we afraid to debate the morality and ethics of “content practices such as news” that have become an integral part of the media planning of companies and brands?
Editorial was conceptually a widely accepted practice in our lives, especially in periods when the power of newspapers to influence public opinion was effective. These writings could be signed or unsigned. Especially in the Western press, unsigned articles written by senior journalists on the “Editorial” pages were accepted as the official opinion of that publication. In fact, these articles would be quoted by other media organs and turned into a “reflection of opinion” with a high multiplier effect. The application that entered our lives with advertising,
that is, advertising, has come to our day as a method of sharing products, services, opinions and information in general with the society by buying time and place by brands and companies where there are all kinds of media in the business.
When the researches revealed that the news in the media, regardless of its size, was more “readable, effective and convincing” in the face of the advertisements that were the subject of these news, “advertorial” entered our lives as an “intermediate solution” . In other words, information that was made to pay for and published like news! Perhaps born out of the need to share non-“newsworthy” information with the public, everyone jumped into this practice “fishing”! Advertising agencies and PR companies are satisfied because the “media coverage” expected by their customers could be easily achieved with this application. The media side is satisfied because an “extra” revenue door has been opened. Somehow there was a morally “cheap” solution, such as placing “this is an advertisement” or “advertorial” in the corner of the published advertoials !
When we look through the application window, we witness that “advertorial” is a “scam”. The applications that translate the phrase “This information is actually advertising, but it was designed in the form of news so that it has a high impact” have raised the question of the ethical understandings of both media and communication sectors such as advertising and PR over time. Could an application that is a “deception” be ethical?
As a result of the attraction that originally came from the fact that the readability of news was higher than that of advertisements, the advertorial created its own market. Even in the media, we see that advertorial tariffs are higher than advertising. Moreover, it began to play a “decisive role” in the media’s relations with the advertising and PR sector . As such, the main function of the media was “defamed of the news”! Is the reader aware of this? “When he comes across the phrase ‘advertorial‘ in newspapers, magazines, web pages or on television, he may perceive that it is an ‘advertisement’, but he is confused as to why it is not presented as an ‘advertisement like an advertisement’. In fact, it may seem like the reader doesn’t care either!
The problem is also fraught with question marks within the scope of press professional ethics. For example; When a content/information that a newspaper’s editorial office does not consider “newsworthy” is paid and appears on the pages of the newspaper, will the professional competencies of the members of the press who cannot find “newsworthiness” in that content be questioned.
Or will the information, which is assumed to be partially newsworthy but can find a place on the page that will not exceed the size of a matchbox even if the decision is made to publish, be relegated to the direction of “let the newspaper make money and give it to the advertising service advertorially”?
Another problem has to do with the content. Since advertorials are published in the form of news, the reader may not perceive it as a paid advertisement. So, when presented in the form of news, will not the independence, impartiality and “trust” established by the reader/viewer in the light of these principles be questioned by the published content? For example, when the manufacturer of a drug responsible for the deaths of thousands of people publishes an advertorial with the headline “Vallla billa there is nothing wrong with our medicines”, will that publication be able to stand behind this claim? Again, won’t a content whose scientific identity is “supposedly and dubious documented” also bind the organ in which it is published?
Think of the legendary CEO Carlos Ghosn. The hero of the Renault-Nissan merger was one day accused of using company resources for personal gain and had to flee Japan, where he was under house arrest, in a double bass box. If this “heroic manager”, whose business and marketing books are taught in universities when there is no problem at the beginning of the day, even the state administrators can meet with him by appointment, now knocks on the doors of the newspapers and wants to publish an advertorial series with the content “they have wronged me and I am a victim”, will this request be accepted? Or should media executives return to him with an answer such as “you have an interesting story, we want to make it a series of articles, but you cannot interfere with the content”?
Should the media organs that have established an advertorial relationship with Tosuncuk Çiftlikbank or Thodex crypto money bear a conscientious responsibility? Or will there be no control mechanism against those who prefer the place and time purchased with money to the readers/viewers with a design disguised as news with the decoration that they receive a “matah” award instead of announcing the “rewards they bought with money” by purchasing the place and time? But are we going to pass off these practices that emit moral and ethical odors because it says “this is an advertisement” written underneath!
Moreover, when the owners of the advertorial knock on the doors of other readers with duplicated copies for their own “other” purposes because “look, that newspaper/magazine wrote so beautifully for us, gave us such a wide space” over time, will the publication organ containing that content defend itself by saying “this is an advertorial, we did not make such a report”?
How will this type of relationship in the corporate dimension be achieved when it turns into a type of relationship between members of the press and companies whose job is to make news and PR companies that are their representatives, in the form of “we give you whatever the money is, as long as you make your news”? Of course, when the door was opened here, “paid interviews”, “sponsored pages”, and product introductions ordered to “paid” columnists came from the arksa.
Media ombudsman Faruk bildirici has given extensive coverage in his writings both in general and in paid news relations. In one of the articles he wrote on his blog on the subject, he mentions a letter he received from Sibel Asna, the owner of A&B, Turkey’s first public relations company. The following findings of Sibel Asna in her letter are important in terms of showing how much the issue is in the skins.
“The increase in paid news defined as advertorial, the publication of news initiated by an important national news agency and followed by other publications for money, the encouragement of customers to write articles praising themselves in additional editions made to collect advertisements under the name of sector supplement and their printing for money have reached unacceptable dimensions. Naturally, this situation has caused serious erosion of trust in the eyes of readers and viewers. Circulation figures and social surveys are also seen as evidence of the situation.
The reputation of our professions and the fact that journalists are accepted as ‘writing the truth’ and ‘telling the truth’ in the eyes of the public has unfortunately changed gravely with the increase of such paid publications. In the business world, rather than whether the subject is newsworthy or not, the idea of ‘I am an advertiser, my news will of course be used’ has prevailed. There is no longer a need to make efforts on issues such as who chooses the news, with which features and applications of the brand are deemed worthy of being news.”
I think Faruk Bildirici has written countless articles on the advertorial issue that have led every institution on the subject to take a stance “in favor of the truth of the matter”. These include the Advertising Board, the Association of Advertisers, the Association of Advertisers, the Advertising Self-Regulatory Board. After all, “It should not be a choice to tie the last remaining vestiges of journalism to covert advertising,” says Faruk Bildirici.
Let us conclude the article with the last part of the views of Üsküdar University Faculty of Communication New Media and Journalism Department Head Süleyman İrvan published in Gazete Duvar;
“In the light of journalistic ethical principles, we can say that the issue of ‘paid interviews’ is an unacceptable practice. Even if the journalist does not receive money directly, practices such as interviews for advertising purposes or advertisements are not acceptable. No one with the identity of a journalist should engage in such controversial practices, even if “sponsored content” is written. If media outlets are going to publish sponsored content, it should be produced by advertising units, not by journalists, as in American media, and what they are should be clearly stated. Every content produced by a journalist is “editorial content” and should not be confused with advertising and promotion. If current journalistic ethical principles cannot adequately respond to the new problems that arise with the Internet, new principles can be developed. The goal should always be better journalism.”
(*) Written for the Winter 2022 issue of IN Magazine, the periodical publication of TEİD Ethics and Reputation Association
Leave a Reply