The Philadelphia Inquirer is introducing a new column in it's business section. Nothing new or newsworthy about that. What makes this column new, different and, in my mind, potentially dangerous is the new form of advertising which it will introduce -- column sponsorship.
The column, a daily collection of notes and entries, will be sponsored by Citizen's Bank beginning Apr. 30. It will run with a sponsor label, and be boxed in green, a color associated with the bank in it's marketing.
The article quotes Inquirer editor William K. Marimow as saying the sponsor will have no control over the column content, and I would bet in a legal sense he is correct -- that the contract specifies no "veto" power or "mandatory inclusions" from Citizen's Bank will be permitted. However, there are other ramifications.
In my checkered career I have spent time (several years) working as a newspaper reporter. This was admittedly a while ago (late 80's, early 90's), but I can't recall _ever_ knowing or caring who was advertising with the paper. I don't recall _ever_ having a discussion about it with other reporters, copy editors, anyone. It simply wasn't relevant to us. Maybe the managing editor and his department heads knew and worried about such things (although I suspect what mattered to them was the amount of ad revenue rather than the specific sources), but we peons who gathered and sifted the information actually printed in the paper simply didn't care about these matters.
Now, I realize newspaper circulation and readership has been dropping, and the industry has been struggling for some time now, with widespread layoffs, declining newsholes and stifling budget cuts. Any source of revenue has to be at least considered, and I am sure Citizen's Bank is paying a pretty nice sum to have it's name splashed every day on the front page of a major Philadelphia newspaper.
Still, as a reader it would concern me. If I were a business reporter helping cover this beat, submitting items for this column, wouldn't I at least _consider_ second guessing myself if an item up for consideration was potentially a negative for Citizen's Bank? Remember, unlike most advertising (which is allocated to the paper in general), the money generated by this sponsorship will be (at least partially) directly applied to the business department budget. Given how tight the job market is four journalists these days, how can that thought _not_ be in the back of a writer's mind?
It may simply be a matter of doing what is necessary to survive. If it's a question of column sponsorship or no newspaper at all, then perhaps we have to bit our tongues and accept the matter, and just be (even more) aware of the inherent biases in what we read. As this NY Times article makes clear, other larger, papers around the country will be watching this experiment with interest. If it works, expect to see similar sponsorships sprout next year.
We already have Chase Field, Reliant Park, Qwest Field. Will we have Kroger's sponsoring
Paul Krugman, or Greg Hanson brought to you by the Phoenix Suns?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment