#MediaMonday – Jeremy Stevens
June 17, 2013
Lessons learned from LeBron James about how to be a better team mate
June 19, 2013
Show all

A BuzzFeed post sponsored by Ben & Jerry's. While they're website is linked and their Facebook page promoted, they are not actually listed in the article.

The New York Times recently made its own news with rumors circulating, claiming it is considering letting advertisers sponsor articles on the web, taking cue from popular sites like BuzzFeed.

The topic showed up in a PR discussion group and garnered a strong reaction:

At first I was surprised by the strong reactions as sponsored content is nothing new. Open any national magazine and you’ll find advertorials and product placements right alongside traditional print ads and feature stories. Yes, these are different, and yes, people should know what content is being paid for vs. what has actually been earned, presumably by a PR pro. After all, by its most basic definition, isn’t PR about product placement - getting your client in front of the right audience through mass media outlets?

(Don’t get me wrong – I would be offended if someone thought all I did was glorified product placement. It takes strategy, skill and a big heaping dose of ETHICS to equal good public relations. Media relations is also just one part of a comprehensive public relations campaign.)

So how will PR be affected by sponsored content? I could see two sides: One that paints sponsored content as the bane of PR's existence, or the one that simply adds sponsored content to our long list of PR tactics.

The former is easy to see – the coverage is paid for, which pretty much goes against the point of PR, and blurs the line of ethical journalism.

As for the latter, while we wouldn’t want to pay for our clients’ media coverage, the essence of sponsored coverage is creating compelling content that relates back to the brand – a skill dominated by PR industry folk.

What do you think? Should we embrace sponsored content by finding the median between PR and advertising, or should we attribute it to the furthering decline of hard journalism?

Stephanie Lough
Stephanie Lough
A former HMA Public Relations employee.


  1. Kelly Potts says:

    I enjoy Buzzfeed, but if there is an article that says “sponsored by” rarely do I click that link because it usually takes me to another website!

    Will be interesting to see how this plays out!

  2. Scott Hanson says:

    We’ve seen it in sports broadcasting: “The seventh out brought to you by Geiko, where seven minutes will get you….”

    Maybe we’ll soon see: “Tonight’s lead story — brought to you by ….”

  3. We are already seeing so much of this and it is likely that the average consumer of the news has paid very little attention to it. Sports and weather on TV have certainly incorporated sponsors, virtually everything on radio these days in sponsored. The bigger issue for me is whether or not you can measure the ROI on these types of media investments — is about getting the click-throughs, brand recognition, community relations, etc.

    Time will tell how this plays out, but I don’t think we’ll see an end to sponsored content any time soon.

  4. You can smell the bull**** a mile away. The very phrases – “sponsored content”, “native advertizing” – are as accurate as “enhanced interrogation.” It’s either an advertisement or your media company is producing content. Creating editorial content for advertizers for money, rather than for readers for its own sake, is a major shift in this industry. There is an obvious solution, as Derek suggests. It is to make the advertorials look more different from editorial than they now do and slap a clear word ADVERTISEMENT on top of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *