A recent study by big PR firm Manning, Selvage & Lee and PRWeek found that 17% of senior marketers said their organizations bought advertising in return for a news story.
Excerpt from the news release:
"The survey also found that 7 percent of marketers said their organizations have had an implicit/non-verbal agreement with a reporter or editor that they expected to see favorable coverage of their company or products in exchange for advertising. And 5 percent of marketers said their companies had paid or provided a gift of value to an editor or producer in exchange for a news story about their company or its products."
For me, this falls into that very broad category of "things that make you say hmmm."
This issue is part of an ongoing debate at our firm which includes dozens of participants -- clients, journalists, family members, etc. The main question: Is editorial space "for sale" in media outlets if a company advertises?
Although we don't make advertising decisions for our clients (maybe we can claim immunity), we have definitely seen instances where companies are mentioned in magazines where they advertise; and it appears quite fishy. We also like to believe that many outlets adhere to the "Chinese Wall" between the editorial and advertising departments -- some more than others.
The study's results are rather interesting, particularly when you consider that the real figure is probably higher than 17% as many marketers would rather be hush-hush.
What do you think? Does advertising grease the wheels for editorial coverage? Please feel free to join the debate.
Click Here to read the entire news release on the study.
--John
http://www.miamipublicrelations.com
http://www.davidgarciapr.com
FINALLY, A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR DICK NIXON
-
President Eisenhower had three secret meetings with aliens, former Pentagon
consultant claims (Thanks to Peter Metrinko)