Echo readers were paid an indirect compliment this week. Two separate agencies contacted us about running advertising on our pages.
That seems to imply you’re a demographic worth courting.
But what does it mean to us? We’re a non-profit operation, but that doesn’t mean we’re not in need of revenue.
Every bit we can attract enables us to cast a broader net for news across the basin. Unrestricted revenue gives us greater freedom to pursue news.
The trade-off?
Well, one of these agencies offered to pay us $200 if we allowed them to insert a text link to an advertiser within a news story. The example they cited was the reference to “Virgin Atlantic” on this page.
This site is unlike Echo — it’s not a news site. And the journalist in me quickly rejected the notion. “If I understand correctly, it would require us to make editorial decisions based on whether we could shoehorn your client into our story,” I wrote back. “We prefer our editorial decisions to be driven by the journalism.”
Their reply: “Our copywriters are highly experienced in this genre of marketing so will be sympathetic to your existing content at all times. If the copy we provide is not to your liking you can suggest alternate text provided the anchor text remains the same.”
It all seems a bit duplicitous. And yet…maybe I need to get off my high horse. Is this worse than product placement in the movies? Sure, movies are fiction and we’re in the reality business. But I have to admit I did a little fantasizing of how much more journalism we could produce with a sufficient number of $200 text links.
What do you think?
Is this a flawed way of supporting journalism? And even if it is less than pure, is it an acceptable trade-off if it is a piece of the equation that supports quality news reporting?
Can we be too pure during this unsettling time of evolution of news reporting and the mechanisms to support it?
Great Lakes Echo Editor David Poulson is the associate director of Michigan State University’s Knight Center for Environmental Journalism.