Podcast Advertorials and Infomercials Aren’t Conversational in any Way I Recognize
May 14, 2008 by Eric Eggertson
Filed under Marketing
If a little bit of advertiser involvement in podcasts is good, a lot is better, right?
No!
Let’s look at two business podcasts and how they treat their advertisers (or “sponsors”, if you want to pretend it’s not advertising).
On For Immediate Release, Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson talked openly about adding commentaries prepared and voiced by their sponsors. This was a blessed relief from the canned ads they first tried, and also a step up from hearing a product endorsement from the hosts every episode.
Now their podcasts include a short bit of bumph from Ragan Communications, and an advertorial (oops, I meant to say “commentary”)from Custom Scoop. There’s generally useful information, some good advice. Best of all, the spots are brief enough to not spoil the listening experience.
Contrast that with Joseph Jaffe’s podcast sponsorship by the U.S. Postal Service’s Deliver Magazine.
After explaining to listeners how great the partnership was going to be, Jaffe started running infomercials on his Jaffe Juice podcast (formerly known as Across the Sound). These 4-5 minute corporate think pieces are written and voiced by the client. Think Troy McClure and you’ve got the idea.
That’s bad enough, but then Jaffe devotes more podcast time to rehashing the paid commentary, expending what remains of his editorial credibility on a discussion about the advertorials.
Conversational marketing is one thing. Five minutes of “thought leadership” by a paying shill is not any kind of conversation I want to be part of.
Mercifully, the sponsorship is soon ending, so we can return to Jaffe explaining at length that he is breaking new ground by selling an interview on his podcast in exchange for some electronic gear.
But it’s okay, because he’s transparent about it, so no ethical boundaries are being violated, right?
Ack. Edward R. Murrow is not only rolling over in his grave, he’s jamming large spikes into his ears so he doesn’t have to listen any more.
During its relatively short history, journalism has established (and often broken) fairly clear rules about keeping the editorial function separate from the advertising function. That line is blurring in a lot of mainstream publications and shows, but at least there’s some attempt to distinguish between information chosen based on its news value, and messages designed to get you to buy a product.
Podcasting, in its infancy, doesn’t have a lot of rules about what should and shouldn’t be done. Some podcasters are choosing to keep ads separate from editorial. Others, not.
My patience for commercials tarted up as commentary tends to only last as long as the podcasters use humor or sincerity.
What doesn’t work for me is having someone explain to me in great detail that pseudo editorial content is much better because it’s conversational.
Those kinds of conversations usually end with me saying, “Sorry, we don’t respond to any telephone solicitations,” before hanging up my phone.
Sandwich board photo by Mike Coghlan, used under a Creative Commons licence. Photo of Joseph Jaffe by Paull Young, used under a Creative Commons licence.
Technorati Tags: business, communications, advertsing, joseph jaffe, jaffe juice, shel holtz, neville hobson, for imediate release, podcasts, podcasting, advertorials, infomercials, media, standards, troy mcclure, simpsons, ragan communications, custom scoop
Further proof why PR and Advertising are often times like oil and water ;)
The whole talking smack about someone else via blogging (essentially behind their backs) and then pimping for digg votes thing is getting old, tired and boring.
Why not send in an audio comment to +1 206 203-3255 or better yet, come on the show and let’s discuss this one-on-one.
fwiw, the deliver segments are content not infomercials or advertorials. I respond to them as content. I’ll certainly go back and check and will stand corrected, but I think the number of times where I overtly say things like “this episode is brought to you by” and laboriously expound on the subject is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, the reason why I talk about the sponsorship per se at all is also to use this is a live/open case study for other podcasters to determine which routes to follow for themselves.
I’m not sure if you’ve ever been to a podcamp, but there are tons of podcasters trying to figure out what business model to deploy and how to monetize their time and efforts. Am I the poster child for how to do it right all the time? Of course not, but I’m man enough to stick my neck out and here criticism and feedback (in fact I’ve been asking for it over the past few episodes)
I guess that’s what you’re doing now, so thanks. I think.
Joseph:
Thanks for the note.
I don’t think I’ve ever gotten more than a small blip from Digg, so if you can help drum up a Digg-swell on this post, that would be great!
I’d be happy to leave a comment or come on the show. I’ve been listening to your podcast since the Steve Rubel days.
If someone pays me cash to put their message on my blog, my forehead or my kids’ birthday photos, it’s advertising, no matter what I call it.
I don’t begrudge USPS’s choice to place think pieces on your podcast. You’re welcome to comment about them. If that took 3-4 minutes total, you probably wouldn’t hear a peep from me. After 15 minutes, I’m the one driving spikes into my ears to stop the sound of one corporate hand clapping…
Awesome rant, Eric! Reminds me of those page long advertorials in the newspaper that say “advertisement” in small letters at the top. You may be “transparent” but the average reader (and in this case listener) may not really be aware that this content is different — and paid for.
Eric,
Your post is awfully puzzling to me.
Ragan Communications pays to sponsor For Immediate Release. That sponsorhip is not only disclosed on FIR’s web site, but Shel and Neville remind listeners of this relationship whenever they mention Ragan in their analysis and commentary.
What exactly is the problem? Isn’t that what they are supposed to do? Isn’t this the traditional, journalistic approach to disclosure?
Are you saying that FIR should not allow sponsorship or advertising at all? What exactly are you criticizing?
And, just to set the record straight for your readers, Ragan does not air commentaries on FIR, paid or otherwise.
Our 30 to 60-second spots advertise Ragan products. Since when has advertising become unethical? I would agree with you if Shel and Neville we’re doing the whole Paul Harvey thing and reading an ad as if it were a story. But everything Ragan does on FIR is transparent.
Miranda’s comment about the average listener not being aware of the relationship certainly doesn’t apply to FIR and Ragan. Our sponsorhip relationship is plastered and broadcast all over the site and on the show.
Jaffe is a lightning rod for this stuff…it always amazes me how prickly he gets about criticism, when his business card offers him up as Chief Interrupter. Interrupting people sometimes gets you a hug and sometimes gets you a punch in the nose. He knows that.
I can respect his desire to try out new things from the perspective of a marketer. He’s making an effort to disrupt the usual media model of disembodied ads or content sponsorships.
Unfortunately, many of his efforts end up crossing that editorial Maginot Line that some of us hold as sacred. Joe is experimenting with his place at the intersection of content creator, marketer, new media maven and audience aggregator. I’ve never been thrilled with any of his efforts and they’ve turned me off the program that, like you, I listened to when Rubel was still in the co-host’s chair. As I’ve said before, I listened because of Joe. I bought into Joe and the value I would get from him through his podcast. His experiments with iPhones, PCs and sponsored content have made me feel that he doesn’t value me as a listener. He’s aggregated an audience and then turned around and sold us off to organizations we don’t care about. Joe and I disagree on this, but his approach has been very old media in the new media space.
Mark:
Take another read through the post. Eric is holding up FIR’s approach as better than the way Joe Jaffe has been doing it.
David,
Thanks. I misunderstood.
Never mind, Eric.
Mark
Personally I find the Ragan stuff on FIR to be even more conventional and old school (stir, stir – calm down everyone)
Props to Doctor Jonezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz for demonstrating that broken records never lose their appeal (stir, stir – calm down everyone)
Note to self: don’t respond to link baiting blog posts at 5am before coffee
PS I LOVE the Fabreze and Swiffer banner advertising on this site. I find it to be very contextually relevant for the subject of PR (stir, stir – calm down everyone)
I love you all. Now forgive me if I lift my head from my navel and focus on real work (stir, stir – calm down everyone)
Accepting, for the sake of argument, that “monetize” is a word… let Joe go for it. Since a market exists for just about anything, including shameless shills, I am sure he will find his niche.
He will have to accept being laughed at by serious communicators, but I suspect that’s not a big issue for him.
Ads? What ads?
Wanders by using Adblock…
Mark: No worries. I can see how you would think I was criticizing Ragan. Sometimes I’m not as precise in my wording as I could be.
I find the 30-second Ragan ads on For Immediate Release much easier on my ears and my mind than the average commercial radio ad. They are consistent with the tone of the podcast; they provide timely info about events or info that is likely to be of interest to the average FIR listener; and they aren’t intrusive.
Ditto for the Custom Scoop ads, which are much more of a “commentary” style item than the Ragan ones.
I think it’s great that Ragan Communications, Custom Scoop and the U.S. Postal Service are supporting podcasts aimed at marketing/PR professionals.
I would argue that your ads are more effective than what USPS is doing, because yours are quick, to the point, and aren’t disguised as editorial content.
Why you “serious communicators” gotta be hatin’ on the advertising amateur?
@eric, this has been fun…but as a final word, I just want to be clear, this isn’t advertising disguised as editorial content. Have you actually listened to all 10 conversation starters? This is about an association – a partnership. It’s a custom sponsorship that’s looking to do things differently.
As I mentioned during my SNCR Keynote Q&A, we really have to be a little bit more supportive as an industry of efforts as opposed to jumping down throats like a bunch of rabid dogs. It sometimes gets a little pathetic and desperate, where every social media expert tries just a little bit too hard to “rant” and stand out from the crowd with their 2c (present company excluded of course)
Hey, Eric, great post! Loving the conversation.
Miranda and Kritsten: Thanks for dropping by. Always pleased to provide entertainment and occasional bits of wisdom. I think we’ll just stick with entertainment today…
Mr. Jaffe –
It’s one thing to chalk up a snarky response to an early-morning pre-coffee reaction.
It’s another to signal in consecutive lines that you are intentionally stirring the pot.
“Serious communicators” don’t hate on people. They hate on things. And in this case, the thing in question is the penchant for blurring lines that serve as signposts for our various audiences. Transparency isn’t about what YOU claim to do in the name of disclosure. Successful transparency means the majority of your clear-thinking audience knows what *is* and what *isn’t* paid content.
It’s not about you. It’s about a practice that might meet every legal courtroom definition of disclosure, but in practice blurs the lines. Poll the average listener, and see if they can tell what content was paid and what wasn’t. Sure, *your* audience might be hip and savvy and “get it.” But you seem quite proud of trailblazing the practices and future business models for so many others, who might just adopt the practice without the attitude or audience understanding that is peculiar to Juicers.
Mr Ike,
From your post, I would assume (forgive and correct me if I’m wrong) that you don’t know me (or of me).
That’s ok.
If you did, you’d probably have a better idea of my tonality, intent and style.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not intentionally trying to provoke and be controversial, but at the same time, let’s call out Mr Eggertson, who admits to this being a “rant”. Who exactly is trying to stir the pot? Was it me or him?
Secondly, it’s probably clear (and if not, again forgive me) that you haven’t listened to Jaffe Juice and the Conversation Starters series (”welcome to conversation starters, an ongoing series of podcasts brought to you by the partnership between Joseph Jaffe and Deliver, the magazine for marketers”)
Is there a problem with disclosure or transparency?
To answer that question, let me be clear myself. I strongly believe in both and vehemently oppose opacity and duping consumers. Until this post, no one and I mean no one has questioned either.
I guess this just underscores everything that is wrong with the blogosphere i.e. broken telephones, speculation and navel gazing.
I hold my audience/community in the highest regard and most importantly, I don’t underestimate their intelligence. I also challenge them as they challenge me and recognize that not everyone can be my listener.
If PR purists like Eric and David Jones don’t want to listen (Steve Rubel left after episode 13; I’m now at 109), that’s perfectly ok with me.
Peace.
PS I’m now unsubscribing from this comment thread and moving on.
Talk amongst yourselves, I’ll give you a topic. PR, like advertising, needs to evolve and embrace a duality approach, instead of remaining siloed and separatist. Discuss.
Thanks for your thoughts, Eric!
I truly enjoy putting together our 60-second spots for FIR, our aim is to both raise the word about CustomScoop but also contribute to the show in some way with our own thoughts and ideas about what’s happening in social media. “Advertising as content” is exactly our aim–we don’t deny they are ads, but we try to make them interesting to the audience. We get a lot of positive feedback on the spots and have even tried bringing in other “surprise guests” and outside voices to record one here and there to keep it interesting. I’m glad to see you appreciate the efforts. :-)
Nice post, Eric :)
0.02 from Shel and me in today’s FIR – http://tinyurl.com/5zften
Neville: thanks for the link to the FIR episode. I like the segment on your podcast. Insightful as usual, and nicely balanced.
Sarah:
Remind me to revisit the Custom Scoop approach to positioning your company with your target market. It’s a nice example of low key selling. Lots of helpful ideas, a regular demonstration of the degree to which you understand social media.
Both useful for putting your company top of mind when someone is thinking about doing more in the SM landscape (no, that’s not S&M – different podcast!).
Joseph:
Not sure which of your comments and jabs to respond to.
I’ll just cover a couple of specific questions you asked.
No, I haven’t heard all the segments done with USPS.
I don’t dispute that you spent considerable energy explaining the relationship with USPS to your audience.
A lot of ads that appear on this blog come via the Glam network, which is targeted at professional women and people who are into fashion, beauty and fitness. I have rarely used Febreeze, especially since our dog died. We sometimes buy Swiffer stuff because we have wooden floors and lino. I tend to get the cheaper generic products, or just jam a paper towel into the Swiffer mop head and maybe give it a quick zap with anti-static spray to attract dust (we’re all allergic).
I’ll try to get back to you with something in audio format, and will try to keep my comments focused on my central point about the separation of editorial and advertising.
Eric, did he just call me a Nobody?
Because if so, he’s the biggest Somebody to Nobody me since He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named.
Fun conversation. Sorry I missed the party.
Edward R. Murrow wouldn’t have heard of Jaffe, let alone listened to his podcast, so fear not, Eric.
I used to like Jaffe and his podcast, but he’s gone off the rails – or as someone said, he’s “gone all Howard Hughes on us.”
I used to listen to Jaffe’s podcast and read his blog, but I unsubscribed over 6 months ago, around the time he started running those spots for USPS. Good to hear I’m not missing much on The Jaffe Show.
Wow. I think you just hit the nail on the head. Joe’s challenges are that he is obsessed with making money and has a huge ego. (I have never met the guy, that’s what I am gleaning from his posts and ‘casts). He is squandering his credibility in the pursuit of cash, and gets up in arms whenever anybody dares criticize him. I think by attrition his audience will shrink to the extent it will no longer be possible to monetize.