I was stunned when I came across a sponsored "article" on Mashable. Besides shamelessly advertising Panasonic's Lumix GX7 camera, the piece, written by Panasonic, is surrounded by ads for Panasonic.
The layout is identical to Mashable's normal coverage, using the same fonts throughout, and the article quotes a "world-class photographer," who was provided the camera for capturing photos on his trip. It looks like real editorial content and it even has comments on the bottom. (I'd love to see every advertisement have a comment thread, ha!)
Nowhere did it actually say this was an advertisement. Under the leading photo it does disclose "Sponsored by Panasonic," but this is not going far enough when a discreditable advertisement poses as editorial. Sponsorship, you call it? Sponsorship to me means you bought the uniforms for a Little League team.
Whatever the excuse, this is not kosher. It should be condemned.
Not to mention, the piece is terrible. Did the editors even edit it? For example, it refers to "MOS Sensor Technology" as a photography term alongside real terms such as "aperture" and "shutter speed." The article ends with this quote from a photographer: "It's a different ballgame that you can take silent pictures." What does that even mean? Using "Panasonic" as the byline is also weird. Was the piece actually written by the corporation as a whole? Or is this just a way to throw this in our faces?
The article lists "4 Features Your Camera Needs to Take Excellent Photos." The four items are as follows:
1. Touch Auto Focus: You touch the LCD screen where you want to focus. This assumes the camera itself cannot figure this out. This does not contribute to an excellent photo as much as composition or a great lens.
2. Shutter Speed: The claim here is that if you do not have 1/8000 shutter, it's crap. This is plain malarkey.
3. MOS Sensor Technology: So someone with a CCD sensor of the exact same pixel-count cannot take a good picture? Who knew?
4. Built-in Image Stabilizer: Doesn't every camera have this nowadays? What's the big deal?
This kills me because Panasonic actually has some tremendous lenses, but those are never mentioned in the article. Also, sensor size is not discussed. A great lens and a nice big sensor would seem more likely to contribute to a quality picture than a 1/8000 shutter, no?
I hate to admit it, but "sponsorship" is the future of content.
Historically advertorials have been positioned as as "advertising supplements"—no publication can resist the kind of quick money they generate—but they were never shoehorned into the actual publication. Typefaces were always changed, too.
Publishers know they are walking on thin ice with such content. No reader wants to feel tricked. And I don't mean to just pick on Mashable since I'm sure it is happening everywhere. Press releases are often published whole cloth with no editing whatsoever. Fake articles are written and passed around for free in exchange for a plug for a book.
Do you see me constantly promoting Inside Track 2013? Available here:www.insidetrackbook.com.
(OK, skip that last comment about the book. But it is very common.)
With the slow death of print magazines and the balkanization of content sites, audiences are fragmented and traditional advertising revenue cannot support most operations.
The winners here are the gadget sites that show a picture and a snippet of commentary. The overall knowledge base of the readers declines largely because there is nothing to learn.
Rather than being so sneaky, perhaps Panasonic should try to earn accolades the old-fashioned way: with hard work and quality products. It should not have to trick people into buying its cameras.
If readers think this new direction is OK, then they will have to live with it. From what I can tell nobody cares but the old-timers. One ignoble commenter even defends the article because it told us of the glories of the four features. He works for an SEO content company grinding out crap.
Source : PCMag
No comments