Journalists Are Becoming Ad Copywriters
Seems as though journalists are being called
on these days to work as public relations consultants and ad copywriters. That's the conclusion one can draw from a
recent Folio magazine article. Under a headline that reads "Majority of Publishers Use Their Own Editorial Staffs
to Produce Native Ads," Folio reports on results of a recent study by London-based trade association FIPP and the Copenhagen-based
Native Advertising Institute. Findings include:
"Over two-thirds of magazine publishers leverage their own editorial teams to
produce native advertisements, according to a study from FIPP and the Native Advertising Institute.
"Of 140 magazine executives surveyed around the world [in 39 countries], 68
percent report that their editorial team produces native ads, more than twice as many as the 31 percent who say they use an
in-house native advertising studio, and nearly three times as many as the 24 percent who use a separate native ad team to
produce sponsored content. Far fewer publishers make use of an external agency partner (12 percent), or an advertising agency
(six percent)."
That's not the
way it used to be, was it? Which might lead a purist to ask, What's the difference these days between journalism and
public relations, anyway?
-- Jeff Bogart
About "Fleek"?
Have you come across the word "fleek" before?
As in "on fleek"? Saw it for the first time in today's NYT—not in the Style but in the Business Section,
of all places! Looked it up online, and came across the following article examining its derivation: https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/geeking-out-on-fleek/. Check it out, because it’s a fleek of an article.
This writer, incidentally, is very good, so I’ll need
to explore some of the other posts on this site. Seems as though William Safire lives!
--
Jeff Bogart
