The New York Times Writing Hidden Advitorials?
Yesterday Virginia Heffernan wrote the following post for The Medium, a section of The New York Times Magazine:
BEING THERE. The subtle art of the Facebook update.
I often read this section of the paper and was taken in by the title. Working in the industry, I am always interested in how mainstream media covers our current online zeitgeist. As I read, something didn’t feel right. I kept thinking that Facebook’s public relations agency had a controlling hand in constructing this perfect ‘advertisement’ that now lived in a very reputable news source - The New York Times.
Let’s take a closer look at Virginia’s ‘article’:
The ‘article’ is about Facebook status updates, but the first paragraph starts in by landing a punishing blow to Facebook’s competitor, MySpace. My first thought was, why mention MySpace at all? Here’s what was written:
“…he preferred Facebook to MySpace because MySpace (in his view) was for emo kids who liked Death Cab for Cutie and Facebook was for clever kids who liked words.”
“The Facebook interface is minimalist and not stupid or smeared with fingerpaint like MySpace,…” he said, if I remember right. “It leaves room for wit.”
This is when it hit me…this type of opening would do wonders for a Facebook advitorial.
With that in mind, my attention turned again to the topic…Facebook status updates. This feature is something Facebook ‘borrowed’ from Twitter (a fast growing competitor in the social media space). In marketing a product, it is a common tactic to look for one strategic feature and focus your message there. For Facebook, the status update would be the perfect target, as it would clearly demonstrate that they now have Twitter’s key feature. With such spot-on messaging in favor of Facebook the advitorial thoughts stuck with me.
If you ask people in the social media industry what the difference between Facebook updates and Twitter is, almost everyone will say that Facebook is more about your everyday activities, while Twitter takes on a more professional and witty tone. Facebook is more the ‘Eating tacos at Mac’s…yummy’ while Twitter is anchored in the sharing of information with like-minded people and adding thought provoking commentary. (Here is my page as an example.) With that said, Virginia’s ‘article’ tries to change that perception with a string of comments about witty Facebook posts that add value. Again, classic marketing at work here with targeted messaging aimed at changing current perceptions.
When you reach the end of the ‘article’, There are recommendations…and this is where I told myself I was going to write about this. The following jumped right out at me:
WE ACCEPT YOU: Facebook.com. Where maiden names are revived (so high-school friends can find you); where unfriending someone is an art: where every day is an impromptu reunion. If you haven’t joined yet, what’s stopping you?
This goes beyond an advitorial. It’s a flat out Facebook advertisement right there in the ‘article’! WOW!
Is all this a coincidence? Was Twitter, the originator of status update, not a part of the recommendations by chance? Maybe? I would love to hear Virginia’s telling of how the ‘article’ came together, but she, and The New York Times Magazine, have a lot of explaining to do because here is the kicker…After finishing Virginia’s story, I turn the page and start the Consumed section written by Rob Walker . Rob’s ‘article’ is about Twitter, but the title is ‘A Successful Failure’. The ‘article’ does Twitter no favors as the opening graphic shows a series of cracked mugs with the words ‘Fail Whale’ under it, and there is copy reads as follows, “…during a big popularity spike, Twitter experienced regular service outages…”. Though the focus of the ‘article’ is deftly written about the person who created the graphic for the ‘Fail Whale’, it still knocks down Twitter whenever it can. For example, it alludes to the fact that Twitter’s branding is made of stock imagery that costs but a few dollars…a subtle slapping around, but effective in cheapening the Twitter brand.
One could argue that Virginia and Rob wrote two very different ‘articles’, but there is one very clear message they make together - ‘Facebook is better than MySpace and Twitter!’ I don’t know Facebook’s PR agency, but I will bet you my house and a mouse that the agency has a close relationship with The New York Times.
Don’t get me wrong, I love The New York Times and rely on it for a lot of great information, and I really enjoy Virginia Heffernan’s work and think she is a fine journalist. What I have a problem with, and why I am writing this post, is the disturbing trend of having content and advertising dance too closely at the masquerade ball. Newspapers are in need of revenue, and marketers are struggling to reach elusive customers…and this combination only means bad news for all our content.
All companies need to understand that consumers are begging for transparent brands that can listen and are trustworthy. Masked tactics that try to fool the audience won’t last long. If content had a Facebook page, it’s current update would be, “I’m at my computer. I don’t see advertising coming up behind me with a rope. The rope tightens around my neck, and advertising changes my status to: is DEAD!”
Posted in BEST OF..., marketing
February 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
It’s a very interesting piece. And I’m not at all surprised.. I actually stopped reading the Times a while ago (tho occasionally I’ll read the entertainment section because that at least is justified fluff) as I realized they are only slightly better at reporting the “truth” than Time Magazine or any other mass media publication. Having worked at Time for many years, it’s only a slightly hidden secret how advertising drives editorial. I’m a bit confused as to why/how the times/Virginia partnered with Facebook, as what they need is revenue as opposed to more users, but I’m sure it won’t hurt either.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I didn’t think the New York Times would do something like this, but I have seen it in other places as well, so I guess it was only a matter of time. I was listening to the Jim Rome show this morning on the radio, and he spent the first half hour talking about Crown Royal. Of course he masked the straight out advertising as a gift from Hines Ward - what a joke! You are right, we are losing our content. Thanks for posting this!
February 17th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Most of the Times editorial is very juvenile. If Virginia had partnered with facebook, you would at least expect some of the information to be backed up with a little well positioned writing, or statistics, or the opinion of an individual less devoid of the “wit” that enamors them with facebook. If it is indeed an attack, its a poor one.
I guess what I’m getting at is, what’s worse: The fact that this editorial is clearly laced with an ad, or the fact that it is designed to aim so low it’s an insult?
Know thy enemy. Maybe facebook expects with smear tactics and less than reputable ad techniques they can attract the very low culture people the aditorial purports are on myspace in the first place.
Also, I wonder if blatant bias could be confused with an ad driven editorial… It’s possible she’s just a terrible journalist.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Sadly, the wall between serious journalism and the economic side of the newspaper industry is breaking down.
Part of it has to do with the dissipating influence of the printed page, dwindling readers and advertising revenues amidst
competition from the internet and blogosphere.
As newspapers across the country fight for its survival and scrounges for revenue online while trying to minimize losses
from its printed division, I think we can expect some breach in that wall between the editorial and the business side of
the newsroom. A more subtle example might be Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition of the Wall Street Journal last year.
Murdoch has bent over backwards to appease the Chinese government in order to secure his substantial investments there.
So it shouldn’t surprise us if the WSJ’s criticism of China will be muted under his new management.
In this case, however, I’m not sure if the New York Times is a culprit of that advertorial charge. While they’re
hurting like other newspapers, I don’t think the New York Times financial situation is so dire that they would risk their
reputation for a financial arrangement. They might be that desperate five years from now, but not now. In this case, it
might really be one editor’s preference for one social networking site over another. Plus, in that battle for online
communities, the readers of the New York Times might not be the most active demographics of Facebook or Twitter users.
By the way, you need to enlarge your comments field a bit, Eric. I can’t write anything if I can only see
one sentence at a time…LOL.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I do agree that the article reads like it was written by a Facebook PR agent, but at the same time, I’ve seen dozens of similar articles on various supposedly impartial news sources. (See Mashable.com as an example)
I believe there is a cult-like viral meme associated with Facebook. Everyone who touts its benefits over other social networks seem to reiterate the same talking points. Similarly, the criticisms of MySpace and Twitter often seem to revolve around issues that have been resolved long ago, like service outages on MS and Twitter and spam on MS.
I find it ironic that she spends so many words describing her adoration of FB’s “Status”, which is actually less functional that MySpace, and lacks the diary-like status retention that Twitter features.
I know journalists have gotten lazy in recent years, as they feel the pressure from blogs and 24/7 news outlets. Many rarely execute proper fact checking, or simply end up paraphrasing and re-sampling AP news wires. I can’t say for certain this piece is an “advertisement”, butt it is definitely written by a hardcore Facebook evangelist. It probably escaped editorial balance as it classifies as a cultural/lifestyle piece which is typically looser with facts and more opinion based than real news stories.
And as much as she would like everyone to think the “other” service is populated by depressed emo kids wanting to collect friends….
From my armchair, I can psychoanalyze her behaviour:
She wants people to join Facebook, so they will friend her and make her feel popular!
February 17th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Every publication relies on advrtisers - its a slippery slop we have 2 walk. R the articals being written 4 entertainment, information, 2 prove something, there R papers that R published 2 gain Doctorits. We as the consumer need 2 have a ‘buyer beware attitude’. Some publications have 2 be held 2 a standerd of fact. Others call themselves new and its more like self-serving entertainment. I can’t watch FOX news because 2 me its way 2 slanted, and they have commentators that spout there opition that they call news. Every publication needs 2 be held 2 your ability 2 fact check…whether it be Facebook, CNN, MySpace, ESPN or FOX.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
It’s unfortunate to watch the mighty news sources fall from their highly respected pedestals of objectivity. And The New York Times no less, the very staple of exemplary journalism! Sigh. On top of this, I think Facebook is treading on thinner and thinner ice as greed takes an increasingly large role in their tactics for social network domination. You’ve no doubt heard that they now want the rights to all of their consumers’ content, which thankfully has users in shock. I predict both enterprises will experience more negative feedback in the weeks to come. And some of it may hit hard right where it counts.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I just assume that all articles and storyies are of a somewhat opinionated angle. Its hard to take anything too seriously or as fact until you have read/viewed/listened to multiple stories so you can have an even base to make up your own opinion
February 19th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
It seems like what the media doesn’t tell you is often the meatiest part of the story.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Facebook has its place and so did MySapce. MySpace was for kids and
degenerates. Facebook is for everyone, especially journalists seeking
approval and recognition from their long lost peers. Let’s face it, journalists
were probably not the most popular kids in school. And that tiny little credit
they get at the end of articles isn’t changing any of that.
I wouldn’t necessarily compare Facebook to Twitter though, since Twitter is
like Facebook’s Danny Devito. It’s pretty funny and witty but nobody wants to
wake up next to it, just ask Maria Shriver. Facebook is all strong and buff.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Sehr gute Seite. Ich habe es zu den Favoriten.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
This article was published in the NY Times Magazine. That’s really different from the actual newspaper where they have news stories and reporters.
The article in question is clearly an essay, or a column, which can (and does) have opinion. And snarkiness. It’s ok, really. Just because it’s coming from the NY Times doesn’t mean that it has to be impartial. Essays are supposed to be personal and opinion.