{"id":645302,"date":"2013-03-05T14:17:31","date_gmt":"2013-03-05T19:17:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/paidcontent.org\/?p=225517"},"modified":"2013-03-05T14:17:31","modified_gmt":"2013-03-05T19:17:31","slug":"why-the-washington-post-is-smart-to-try-sponsored-content-and-why-others-should-too","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/645302","title":{"rendered":"Why the Washington Post is smart to try sponsored content, and why others should too"},"content":{"rendered":"

Like virtually every other traditional media outlet, the Washington Post<\/em> has been squeezed hard by the decline in print advertising revenue<\/a> and the inability of digital ad revenue to fill that gap. Unlike almost every other outlet, however, the Post<\/em> has resisted putting up a paywall (for now at least<\/a>) and instead has been experimenting with other methods of monetization. Its latest venture is sponsored content \u2014 something that is controversial, but deserves to be tried by anyone interested in figuring out how digital content works now.<\/p>\n

As noted by my paidContent colleague<\/a> Laura Owen and by Digiday<\/a>, the Post<\/em> has launched a program called BrandConnect, which gives advertisers the ability to create content \u2014 either by themselves or by working with the paper\u2019s staff \u2014 that is then highlighted in a special section of the newspaper\u2019s online front page<\/a>. The content states pretty clearly that it is sponsored (although that doesn\u2019t seem to have mollified some of the company\u2019s critics so far).<\/p>\n

Sponsored content is not necessarily evil<\/h2>\n

In all of the important ways, this doesn\u2019t seem all that different from what newspapers have traditionally done with what they refer to as \u201cadvertorial\u201d \u2014 that is, special sections or articles that are written like newspaper stories but paid for by brands. According to Digiday, no editorial staff are involved<\/a> in creating the content, and the sponsored headlines appear in a small box that looks different from the rest of the page, much like Techmeme\u2019s<\/a> sponsored posts.<\/p>\n

\"WaPobrandconnect\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Critics like Andrew Sullivan \u2014 who recently left the Daily Beast to start a reader-funded site \u2014 argue that sponsored content is ethically dubious, and have raised concerns about the way<\/a> that BuzzFeed handles such content. As Laura notes, The Atlantic<\/em> has also come under fire for the way<\/a> it has done some sponsored features, including one about Scientology (we\u2019ll be talking about this more with Sullivan and BuzzFeed\u2019s Jon Steinberg at paidContent Live on April 17<\/a>).<\/p>\n

While there are debates around how and when to publish sponsored content, and what kinds of content are appropriate for which media outlets, there are some good reasons why other newspapers and traditional media players might want to experiment with this new format as well:<\/p>\n