{"id":2404,"date":"2016-10-25T15:30:16","date_gmt":"2016-10-25T15:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/?p=2404"},"modified":"2022-05-11T11:44:27","modified_gmt":"2022-05-11T11:44:27","slug":"why-trust-is-everything-for-brand-content","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/2016\/10\/25\/why-trust-is-everything-for-brand-content\/","title":{"rendered":"Why trust is everything for brand content"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

This post was first published on 19 May 2015<\/em><\/p>\n

This post draws on two separate but related conversations. Speaking on a panel a couple of weeks ago, one of the people who runs the Guardian Labs (who, I should add, is a former colleague and friend) talked about the ways his well-known publication labels advertiser involvement next to content items. A few weeks before that, I had a really interesting chat with someone at the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) about the sophistication of the average reader.<\/p>\n

\"road<\/a>
photo credit: Ksenia Kudelkina<\/a> via Unsplash (licence)<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

How are the two related? You probably have a good idea. Our ability as publishers and brand content creators to be good at the former (the labelling) doesn\u2019t always match up with our assumptions about audiences (the sophistication).<\/p>\n

When we get that wrong, as professional content people, we lose trust. And trust is the bedrock of all serious content.<\/p>\n

Graham Hayday from Guardian Labs talked about that newspaper whittling down ways to refer to an advertiser\u2019s involvement \u2013 including \u2018no involvement\u2019 \u2013 from a total of eight labels to the current three. (These are \u2018Sponsored by\u2019, \u2018Brought to you by\u2019 and \u2018Supported by\u2019.)<\/p>\n

This is an issue most of us will face in the era of brand content. Years ago, there was editorial copy, there was advertising creative\/copy that sat next to it, and on occasion there were supplements or \u2018advertising features\u2019 that were clearly created by or for paying clients but weaved into or around the main product.<\/p>\n

Today there are all manner of standalone commercial creations \u2013 brand publications, blogs, white papers, infographics, animations, videos and events (I\u2019m not even going near social media for the moment) \u2013 and often these aren\u2019t even the hardest to deal with. Something like the Amex OpenForum<\/a> publication for small businesses, for instance, is clearly created by that charge card provider, and it wants you to know that.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s harder when you look at media publications that are now dabbling in native advertising<\/a>. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, because a traditional ad (advertisers usually don\u2019t know which stories their creative will appear beside) might not need any labelling, whereas ad creative in a section developed especially for an advertiser (who still doesn\u2019t get sign-off or any input) will. But that kind of ad creative won\u2019t be the same as copy (the \u2018native\u2019 bit in native advertising) produced by a brand that will need a special marker, as it appears in the flow of editorial.<\/p>\n

So we see \u2018Sponsored by\u2019 or \u2018Brought to you by\u2019 or \u2018Advertising copy\u2019 or \u2018Paid post\u2019 or \u2018Partner content\u2019 or any number of other phrases. No wonder a publication such as Digiday writes so often about labelling<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But do readers understand the differences? It\u2019s not like these are standardised industry terms. Each publication uses its own judgment.
\nPhil Morcom, the head of the NUJ\u2019s PR and Communications Industrial Council, addressed the subject of audience comprehension when we spoke a couple of months ago. He discussed the example of the UK, with its unique media landscape. The UK has one of the world\u2019s most sophisticated media markets with high use of online media and multiple commercial players \u2013 arguably too many for such a population size \u2013 which means lots of innovation. There\u2019s also the rather huge anomaly of the BBC, a public service broadcaster on a scale you just don\u2019t find elsewhere.<\/p>\n

Given such a media environment, Morcom asked, how can a reader know the difference between \u2018Partner content\u2019 as opposed to a \u2018Sponsored post\u2019? What about when an advertiser has supplied the whole package? How do they know when advertisers just want to appear next to a section of a publication, much as they have always done?<\/p>\n

With so many ways to differentiate \u2013 or not differentiate \u2013 ad content from editorial, it will prove very easy for publications to lose reader trust. This is a challenge that will take years of education and openness with audiences, even audiences who are smart and sophisticated about how this all works.<\/p>\n

Our advice is for labelling to be as plain and descriptive as possible \u2013 though sometimes those two things don\u2019t go together. It\u2019s also not just in a publication\u2019s interest to say the involvement a brand has had. Brands will benefit from readers knowing they are responsible for great content, perhaps doubly so on pages where that great content also means one \u2018Sponsored by\u2019 reference rather than a dozen flashing types of display ad. Less really can mean more, for publishers, brands and readers.<\/p>\n

Might this issue of trust and labelling be the biggest challenge the content industry faces?
\n–
\nFollow us on Twitter – @ColContent
\nDownload our exclusive research and report \u2018PR\u2019s acceptance of brand content uneven\u2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post was first published on 19 May 2015 This post draws on two separate but related conversations. Speaking on a panel a couple of weeks ago, one of the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9109,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[91,33],"tags":[783,164,359,784,405,591,99,350,645],"coauthors":[],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2404"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2404\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9109"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2404"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/collectivecontent.agency\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}