Ahh, first executive decision already came up. How big and high is the editorial/advertising firewall going to be at PodTech?
Will we sell out?
The question came up this morning. Turns out a big company wants to pay us to do some content. Much like Microsoft paid me to do Channel 9.
But, we are developing a news and editorial network. And, audiences get turned off when they know that content isn’t actually coming from the heart but rather is coming from the deep wallets of a big company. If audiences don’t like PodTech, then there won’t be anything for advertisers to buy anyway. So, when it comes to pissing off audiences I’m gonna take a “zero tolerance” approach. Much like Google’s “don’t be evil” meme.
So, the decision. Can an advertiser pay their way onto, say, Geek Entertainment TV (one of our brands)? Not without being disclosed. Even with disclosure, there’s the possibility of pissing off audience members, but disclosure was up for discussing today.
But, then I thought, why shouldn’t every piece of content that we publish come with a “sell out meter?”
For instance, let’s say you go to a video that Irina does. It would have a little tile at the bottom of the page that says something like “sell out meter” that would disclose what kind of outside influence has been placed on the video she’s doing.
What kinds of things would we disclose?
1) Whether that content had some sort of corporate sponsorship involved. For instance, if you go to PodTech, you’ll see a “corporate” row. That content was paid for. That’s the advertorial side of the fence. You’ll see Nvidia’s logo up there. But, let’s say that Irina goes out and does a news story on Nvidia. Well, we should disclose that.
2) Was prior restraint demanded or offered? At Channel 9 every video could be edited by the person I was interviewing. So, if he or she said something stupid they could have it pulled out of the video before it was published. That’s prior restraint. That’s something that no journalist would offer, but many marketers and PR types want before they’ll give access to executives. That’s important for you to know cause it dramatically changes the story that’s possible.
3) Were questions submitted in advance. I’ve had marketers ask me for my questions in advance so that they could prepare and have all the answers ready to go. I hated that and only played that game with Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer’s PR team (I changed the questions halfway through the interview, though, just to demonstrate I wasn’t completely willing to play ball that way). But, that’s important for you to know if content was prepared that way. Why? That tells you a committee mentality is in force here. Whenever I see collusion between media and interviewees I think I’m being sold a bill of goods. I won’t do that to you. At least not without disclosing it.
4) Did an agreement get signed? An embargo? An NDA? Or some other legal agreement between PodTech and the company’s representatives? That’s important to disclose, I think, because that again indicates some sort of collusion and less-than-adversarial agreement.
5) Any gifts or bribes received? Even something simple like a dinner paid for by an interviewee or a small piece of swag? I like being religious about this. Not allowed and if it happens, must be disclosed.
Why does this matter? Well, Tejas Patel is already asking “why should I care about PodTech?” Well, are any of the other content companies going to make such a complete disclosure on each piece of their content they put out? If not, that’s one answer right there. PodTech should be the most transparent media company out there.
What would you like to see disclosed? Do you like the idea of a sell-out meter?