Does branded journalism have a role to play in university communications

This is the edited text of a presentation I delivered at the Universities Australia Marketing and Communications Conference in Melbourne, Australia, in September.

In February this year I posted a LinkedIn essay on how branded journalism was becoming a career pathway for emerging journalists.

It seemed an important topic as hundreds of people each year continue to enrol in journalism and media programs at our universities despite a gloomy outlook for the industry. It is still a popular career choice, even if it is declining in absolute numbers.

 My thinking has evolved a little since I write that post, because this has been the centre of numerous conversations with colleagues ever since. Some of us are ex-journos, some are marketing professionals, others are marvellous PR exponents.

Definitions

I am going to dwell on the semantics here a bit, because I think the nub of this topic comes down to definitions.

Let’s look at a few.

 I searched high and low for an encompassing definition of journalism but what was telling was the very practical descriptions that most media commentators seem satisfied with. Journalism was basically defined as the practice of being a journalist. But that’s not enough. So I had to go back to the start of the 20th century and Joseph Pultizer to find something that resonated.

 Journalism: "What is a journalist? Not any business manager or publisher or even proprietor. A journalist is the lookout on the bridge of the ship of state. He notes the passing sail, the little things of interest that dot the horizon in fine weather. He reports the drifting castaway whom the ship can save. He peers through the fog and storm to give warning of dangers ahead. He is not thinking of his wages or the profits of his owners. He is there to watch over the safety and the welfare of the people who trust him.” Joseph Pulitzer, The North American Review, May 1904.

Pretty powerful. Very noble. Clearly independent. Bear that definition in mind as people try to throw the word ‘brand’ in front of it.

So fast forward 111 years and we have this new phrase called branded journalism. To be fair, I would say Branded Journalism is still being explored as a concept so the definitions aren’t necessarily consistent

Branded Journalism: “Brand journalism involves telling journalism-style stories about a company that make readers want to know more, stories that don’t read like marketing or advertising copy.” Brandjournalists.com - Thomas Scott

 Sounds simple enough, but it also has a tone of deception about it that sits uncomfortably with me. Like brand journalism tricks people into reading what is really advertising.

 “Brand journalism – marketers using the tools of digital publishing and social media to speak directly to consumers.” Lewis Dvorkin, Forbes Business

 I am already sure this is about more than just the channels we use.

 “Brand journalism is journalism produced on behalf of a brand ... content that uses all the skills and techniques of traditional journalism to craft a memorable story.” Brand Journalism UK

 This has more substance. But I think it undersells my former profession to say that it uses “all the skills and techniques” of journalism.

But not everyone is accepting that this new phrase has any substance at all.

Some are rejecting it outright. Ironically, they see it as marketing spin put on PR comms.

“If your purpose is to increase ROI for a business by obtaining more customers, you’re not in the journalism game. And calling your branded content “journalism” is detrimental because it may come across as deceptive to readers ... It doesn’t matter if your ‘brand newsroom” is stocked with current or former journalists. Brand journalism ... there is no such thing.” Sam Petulla, Contently.com

 So there is conflict over these terms - or ambiguity at least.

And there is other stuff happening in the content area that is really interesting and changing the way we deal with our own ever-growing online audiences.

I’m talking about content marketing, which I am a great believer in. But is branded journalism a part of that or separate or even opposed to it. I have even seen it used as a synonym for branded journalism. Let’s have a look.

 Content Marketing: “Content marketing is the marketing and business process for creating and distributing valuable and compelling content to attract, acquire, and engage a clearly defined and understood target audience – with the objective of driving profitable customer action” Joe Pulizzi, Epic Content Marketing

What I like about this is that Joe doesn’t hide the business objective in content marketing. We want conversion.  We want profitable outcomes and the audience isn’t misled in this content journey under Pulizzi’s definition.

 So what about good old-fashioned PR. Isn’t branded journalism just a fancied up public relations story?

 Public relations: Public relations is the deliberate, planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain mutual understanding between an organisation (or individual) and its (or their) public.” Public Relations Institute of Australia

 This is PR’s most re-used definition. It’s possible branded journalism could fit within that scope.

But as a former newspaper editor, on the opposite side of the fence than I am now I used to say to my journalists regularly: Journalism is about uncovering the truth. PR is about distorting it.

It is a harsh comment in hindsight but one of the big challenges with Branded Journalism is that it tries to marry Church and State. It is trying to find a valid place between untethered commentary and designer-driven image making. And that traditionally has been an uncomfortable compromise for both journalism and PR.

Journalism is not PR.

Storytelling v Journalism

And what I think the various definitions of branded journalism are missing, is a true understanding what real journalism is.

They are confusing branded journalism with story telling. Story telling is good but that alone isn’t journalism. Novel writing is story telling. Radio talkback is story telling. Youtube is full of story tellers.

 Heck, you can become a qualified storyteller for $275:

And I don’t believe branded journalism should be reduced to a renamed version of story telling.

 There is a huge opportunity here for journalism to spawn a legitimate child. What we are looking for in branded journalism are those Pulitzer-style concepts.

We want the courage of authenticity. Peer through the fog at the dangers ahead.

Branded Journalism's origins

And this led me to analyse how did we get here. How did all this come about? We aren’t we just letting journalism do its job while we buy advertising?

I believe there are three factors

• Reactionary
• Economic
• Cultural

             Reactionary – Australian media has declined. Clickbait-driven news websites prevail. Most newsprint outlets aren’t making a profit and TV is heamorraging. It is still a mass market model of yesteryear being shoe-horned into the greatest channel for personalised marketing we have ever seen. The business model that has funded journalism for 200 years is broken and the media is thrashing about trying to escape the plastic bag over its head.

             Economic – We have a fractured media profile – loss of reach, cost of reach, questionable measurements like EMMA or Radio ratings or Facebook insights or Klout scores. We have lost trust in the data coming back to us. So understandably, we are now turning to our own channels. We are increasing our investments in the backyard we know. We can measure our own web traffic, interpret the data on an apples-for-apples basis and make changes and adjustments efficiently. It makes better economic sense to spend on our own channels than to throw it into the media wilderness.

             Cultural – more journos out of work. Many are now working for universities. They write well. They write quickly. They have established interviewing skills. They are used to assessing data and documents. They are familiar with re-interpreting information for lay consumption. They invariably have good media contacts. They are good people to have on your team. In the CEDA report Australia’s Future Workforce Phil Ruthven, from IBISworld outlines how media jobs are second only behind manufacturing in job losses in the Australian economy. So we have an unprecedented migration of ex-journos into communications roles and it is influencing our collective view.

These economic, cultural and reactionary causes have fuelled the changes in the media and in communications and led to the birth of Branded Journalism.

Leading examples of Branded Journalism

And there are some fine examples of it.

•  Afl.com.au Australia Rules football site
• Bluenotes.anz.com ANZ bank finance news
• GE news and features
• League of Legends gaming
• Geelong Grammar School news

The AFL has a newsroom of dozens and dozens of editorial staff. They produce news stories, web articles, weekly magazines, special editions.

Blue Notes is an ANZ business that produces financial news. It is topical and informative – and is covered in blue and white branding.

GE Works publishes high-quality features highlighting the energy giant’s contribution to winemaking, mining and even CT scans. It’s Youtube channel could reasonably be mistaken for Discovery or National Geographic.

The eSports video gaming sensation, League of Legends, was around long before Game of Thrones. According to China Daily there are 67 million people playing it every month. The news section of the site shares updates and information as though it were a real and contemporary civilisation.

And check out the Geelong Grammar School’s news section. It rivals most university news sites. It covers all the usual school news but will also report on the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse. That is a courageous example of peering through the fog and storm.

There are plenty of PR news sites out there. Dozens of fine story telling sites. But this handful deliver branded journalism; content that meets general journalistic criteria.

Why Universities and Branded Journalism

And why then are universities such prime targets for this new offspring of journalism?

I think it is because of four very valid reasons

• Academic freedom
• Diverse topics
• Genuine news
• Robust brands

 Academic freedom is akin to editorial independence. As institutions we are used to informed academics saying and doing as they please, even if it is off brand. And while that might seem paradoxical for branded journalism it is evidence of institutional courage of conviction. Evidence of uncovering the truth. Evidence of living with discordant views. Evidence of peering through the fog and the storm.

Diverse topics: Universities have a good story to tell. From students delivering babies in a Cambodian  village while on a nursing placement to researchers finding new ways to prevent disease or interpret some ancient ritual, we have diverse topcis and genuine news to share. So journos are not going to creatively starve in our environments.

Robust brands: And universities are strong. They are brands that can take some battering. We don’t like it when it happens but mostly we are robust and enduring.

In these ways, universities offer similar environments to many newsrooms so having our own branded journalism fits comfortably.

But I want to make an important point here. Let’s not romanticise journalism too much.

Does Joseph Pulitzer’s definition of journalism really apply to that real estate story you’re reading; or that motoring review. Have you ever read a critical story in one of the schools liftouts in a newspaper or seen anything but positive stories on Getaway. And what about the TV news journalists reporting on their own network’s shows like The Block or Masterchef as though it’s a legitimate story.

Journalism has changed

The definition of journalism has changed.

The practice of journalism has changed too, and given so many definitions tied the craft directly to its practice, this is significant.

 A Standford University project around Journalism In the Digital Age says:

Like the printing press, the telegraph, television and all other forms of media that came before it, the internet has not only changed the methods and purpose of journalism, but also people’s perceptions of news media. Professors Bardoel and Deuze note that, “the shifting balance of power between journalism and its, and the rise of a more self-conscious and better educated audience” has indelibly altered the landscape of journalism.

 Bardoel and Deuze identify the rise of bloggers on one hand and the rise of aggregators like Google News and Huffington Post on the other as disrupting the long-held views of what journalism is.

Others have somewhat more colloquial views.

The advertising and media commentator site based in New York, FishbowlNY, rights about 10 Ugly Truths of Modern Journalism. One of those ugly truths refers to Journalists’ themselves lamenting the decline of their craft in favour of entertainment news. “Paris Hilton can often drive more (website) traffic than the president”, they say.

FishbowlNY talks about the demise of the copy editor or the sub-editor so poorly written and researched stories are being published unchecked. In the face of dwindling audiences or at least dwindling engagement, more and more sensationalist and provocative content, poorly manufactured, is being pushed into the dying print editions and the click-baiting websites. It creates a downward spiral.

Vineet Kaul, writes in “New Media: Redefining Journalism” about journalists not adapting to technologies well enough and not responding with any sophistication to the fracturing of their audiences. He and others write about the almost global phenomenon of conventional media organisations being really bad at responding to the rise of online delivery over the last 15 or 20 years.

Is journalism worth saving?

Journalists’ audiences, in the traditional sense, are disappearing and they are, as a group, dealing with it poorly.  So should we even bother to give branded journalism some sort of editorial credibility when mainstream reporting is in such a funk?

Do we even have to try to live up to Pulitzer’s noble definition of journalism?

Is there really a need to try to defend the ‘reporting’ and ‘storytelling’ activities we do in university branded journalism as some sort of extension of true journalism? Are we trying to honour a practice that is becoming increasingly outdated and overrun by new technologies, new consumption habits, new levels of discernment among our audiences?

I would argue - despite all this gloom - that attempting to uphold the qualities of our branded journalism is critical for universities.

Firstly, it gives us better and more robust content.

Secondly, that better content will help fill the void of the media industry’s current constraints.

Lastly, journalism will revive. It will find a new equilibrium. Therefore, sticking to its fundamental principles for content produced outside of newsrooms will serve us well in the long term.

If branded journalism is notionally the practice of delivering well-written and researched information to an interested audience who know they can rely on its accuracy and authenticity, then university-branded content can comfortably fit that definition.

It is not branded journalism that is undermining Pulitzer’s definition, but rather mainstream media that is close to squandering its inheritance. I believe universities are strong enough, interesting enough and ideally suited to take up genuine journalistic content.

So go forth, I say, put your branded-journalist on the lookout of the University ship.

We are never going to replace old-school journalism but university-led branded journalism could well be one of the points of revival for the craft.

- Dean Gould