If you happen to follow the Star-Advertiser on Twitter, or are Facebook friends with the newspaper, you probably noticed something new this week–advertisements delivered directly through both channels.
The move drew a quick comment from a connected reader.
So not only are they distributing links to frequently paywalled content, now it’s a link
direct to an advertiser’s website — Toyota Hawaii — without even a pretense of a partnership or link to promotional content on the SA’s own website. I’ve not seen this before, and from the Twitter conversation, I don’t think others have, either.Checking their Facebook account, they had a bit more space to explain how the Star-Advertiser and Toyota Hawaii are working together, and directing people to the printed paper for details as well as the Toyota Hawaii website.
I guess it’s a fair question — is the feed on Twitter, Facebook, or other social networks considered BOTH editorial and advertising? At least in the past, the advertising stuff has been couched as advertorial. Check out the Star Advertiser’s latest hot daily deal at Bob’s Tacos! Donate to KHON’s Lokahi Tree! Watch an exclusive HawaiiNewsNow interview with “Hawaii Five-0” stars! It’s hard to articulate why a straight up ad post feels so wrong….
If a news organization throws ads into what was previously an editorial/news channel, it diminishes the value and impact of that channel. And, well, I think everyone who decided to follow @StarAdvertiser did so in the interest of getting news, not special offers.
Fewer people are following @StarAdvertiser than followed @HonAdv, and only a couple thousand more than followed @StarBulletin. I doubt this will help that audience grow.
And yes, I can just unsubscribe from the feed. I’m more curious about the implications for the media outlet’s credibility, rather than social media reach.
It certainly feels like unwanted “junk mail” to me. Is this the future? Social media reduced to another way to just another way to deliver advertising?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ads have been slowly moving into traditional news space for the several years. Around 10 years ago the Advertiser started running small ads on the bottom of page one. Many staffers at the time were very bothered by this but since advertising paid their salaries nothing could stop this .
“social media reduced to just another way to deliver advertising?”
I hear you, but…as opposed to what? As someone somewhere once said: “if you can’t figure out what the product is, then the product is you.”
Essentially, the only counterargument that can support this approach is newspapers are desperate for the money to stay alive.
Newspapers should have taken a wiser approach when the Internet took off in 1995 and looked toward the future, rather than being stuck in the past. They didn’t. The Honolulu Advertiser didn’t bother with the Web until 2000! Google and Craiglist came along, and now newspapers are scrambling for solutions.
This kind of thing is the result. Quality Journalism is paying the price for advertising sales.
Crazy talk. Next thing you’ll be suggesting that big advertisers may actually be able to influence reporting.
I just looked at the current Twitter feed and there seem to be some commercial messages amid a flood of basically aggregated news. I would like tweets about Hawaii news. but @StarAdvertiser is tweeting about anything and everything. So basically I ignore it now, so I didn’t even see that Toyota ad until I looked for it.
Of course, if anyone feels they are being “spammed” with unwanted commercial messages, they could report the feed as spam. That would be a personal decision based on personal tolerances. Enough reports and perhaps something might happen.
At this point, my impression is that the majority of tweets are just unwanted news links, not unwanted commercial messages.
SA stories can’t be linked and sent thru facebook, which is odd because one would think you would want that ability to let many others see the content of your paper.
Guess they don’t call it the Star (“au revoir”) Advertiser for nothing!
they no mo shame. I’m just disgusted with the paper and will never subscribe again. not to mention the diminishing value of the content. there are good people there, esp on the Editorial side, but the business side cares nothing for loyalty, the responsibility of an ‘only’ local paper, or the ‘value of Hawaii’ unique community.” AUWE!
Yup. Once they get your attention and a channel to you, they are going to use it to sell stuff. It is as inevitable as death and taxes. Behind security concerns that is the number two reason I don’t do facebook and twitter.
There was a time when a strict firewall stood between news and commercialism.
That’s gone.
News media owners care little about traditional ethical values. It’s mostly about the bottom line. When the Star-Bulletin moved down South Street, the ad sales department was completely outfitted with partitions and office furniture.
The newsroom worked off picnic tables and folding chairs. It was clear where the priorities lay.
I remember how newspapers were supposed to be a paragon of credibility when I was in college. Ethics was an important part of the curriculum.
Nowadays it’s all driven by ad revenues.
There’s no turning back the clock on this. It’s the way it will be from now on.
And Dean….didn’t you have to take photos from an old Polaroid?? I find it shocking that newspapers today rely heavily on advertising sales. Shocking I tell you! When they start putting sales pitches on Facebook and Tweeter I know the world is coming to an end soon! LOL
It seems to me that the original comment raised legitimate issues of the boundaries and tensions between good journalism and good business. Deserving of more than this dismissive comment.
Not to mention that the dismissive comment is also misleading. The discussion is not about the newspaper industry’s longtime reliance on advertising revenue. Dean’s point is about the growing influence of advertising/marketing over the newsroom, which is bleeding journalism talent and will not save the industry.
Is this the future? Social media reduced to another way to just another way to deliver advertising?
It seems to me that social media as it’s used by so many adults already IS primarily to deliver advertising — promoting their book, art show opening, event, what have you.
From the WSJ, the article “We’re All Media Companies Now and We’re Hiring” argues that all companies are forming media divisions, and these are closer to traditional journalism than to the older public relations (propaganda) model.
http://sales-jobs.fins.com/Articles/SBB0001424052970204012004577070541043699100/We-re-All-Media-Companies-Now-and-We-re-Hiring
So the irony here is that even while a local newspaper like the Star Advertiser seems to be turning into a sales brochure, corporate websites may start to look more like newspapers.
Shoot pics with a Polaroid? Maybe you did, OMG, but not me. Not even as a kid. I had quality standards even back then. And the people who know me also know I’m very picky about doing things right.
As mentioned, it’s not about newspapers earning revenues from advertising.
It’s about how advertising is being allowed to affect the way news is reported. Starting with putting advertising on the front page. That was taboo. Now it’s for sale.
When ad dollars can influence news content can you trust something as benign as a restaurant review? What about consumer protection issues? If investigative journalism steps on the toes of ad clients, even if it means saving a few lives along the way, will the story run? If there’s a positive review about a car and you’re in the market to buy one, will you believe what the writer has to say about it? It might be a lemon but that’s not what the ad client is paying for.
I’ve worked at publications where articles were “advertorials”: pieces done in exchange for advertising.
Credibility has a value that isn’t easily measured. It’s a commodity that’s easily lost when news goes on sale.
Today, as an independent producer, I know exactly what ad dollars mean. But I still hold onto ethics. I’m not about to promote a product if I don’t believe in it. And I also support programs that help our community.
To me, producing a mass-media product is a public responsibility that isn’t supposed to be taken lightly. If you worked in the industry you’d understand this.
Hmmm the only Toyota “ad” I could find on their Facebook wall after searching was a posting for a car art contest, which if you clicked on the Toyota site would take you to the contest details and the staradvertiser logo is on that page, which I would assume means they’re helping with sponsorship?
So it took me a few clicks to get to the bottom of this, but no more than 30 seconds worth of time.
Is it fair to label this as advertising if they’re a corporate sponsor of this contest? Also, is it fair to assume that Facebook is reserved for editorial content? According to who? Just because that’s how some people choose to get their news, would you treat social media as a news entity rather than just go straight to the site itself?