{"id":1291,"date":"2013-01-30T20:55:00","date_gmt":"2013-01-30T20:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/projects\/horsesforsources\/forbes-fooled_013012\/"},"modified":"2013-01-30T20:55:00","modified_gmt":"2013-01-30T20:55:00","slug":"forbes-fooled_013012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.horsesforsources.com\/forbes-fooled_013012\/","title":{"rendered":"Fooled by Forbes\u2019 fantasy fiction?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

One issue dominating the tech-media back channels of late is publisher\u00a0Forbe\u2019s use of its column \u201cBrandVoice\u201d to promote\u00a0blatantly\u00a0<\/strong>various technology products, such as Oracle and SAP.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWhat\u2019s wrong with advertorials?\u201d I hear you ask.\u00a0 Well, simply put, BrandVoice articles are not clearly portrayed as advertorials, such as when you read a car advertisement in the Wall Street Journal, but appear to be regular news and opinion pieces.\u00a0 For example, take a look at this write up of SAP\u2019s \u201cPioneering Walk in the Cloud<\/a>\u201d, or Oracle\u2019s \u201cWhy Exadata Is Rocking the Tech Industry<\/a>\u201d.\u00a0 The only indication that these are sponsored columns, is the “BrandVoice” note at the top, if you happen to know what “BrandVoice” actually means. There is no sponsored content indication anywhere<\/em> on the BrandVoice articles, not even a company logo at the top of the pieces.\u00a0 Moreover, midway through last year, the column title was changed from AdVoice to BrandVoice, further blurring the lines between reality and fantasy.<\/p>\n

The list of praiseworthy articles is endless, and (seemingly) very convincing to the general reader, who is being fooled into thinking they are reading real journalism.\u00a0 And why would you think these articles were suspiciously fictional marketing puffery, while skim-reading over your corn flakes and coffee? It’s Forbes<\/em>, for chrissakes… has to be great content, right?<\/p>\n

Sadly, these pieces are not even written by journalists, but by marketers within the respective vendors.\u00a0 And hey \u2013 it\u2019s awesome marketing. A prestige media platform like Forbes allowing sponsors to pen their own content under their famous brand? Can\u2019t fault the savvy CMOs for buying up some serious media real-estate.<\/p>\n

And this pay-for-praise content fest doesn\u2019t stop with the BrandVoices. There is more blurring of the lines as some regular Forbes columnists are brand sponsored, for example Dan Woods used to be sponsored by IBM, now he is sponsored by SAS<\/a>. How do his followers know who’s paying him to wear their rose-tinted spectacles. Even at HfS, we’ve been approached to be interviewed by Forbes “journalists” for sponsored pieces by services providers.<\/p>\n

So what does this say about Forbes and the state of tech journalism?\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Has Forbes reached a level of greed from its advertising revenue, that it simply doesn\u2019t care about fooling its readership into reading blatant commercials?\u00a0 According to one (highly credible) vendor marketer, the cost is $1M to get into BrandVoice, and there is even a more modest program requiring a paltry $50K to $100K a month for a six-month trial package of fantasy pieces. \u00a0This isn’t small potatoes stuff, ladies and gentelmen…<\/p>\n

Or is this simply the decline of the tech journalism industry, where vendors have taken their level of control over written content to a whole new level where the publisher and vendor have lost all respect for impartiality?\u00a0 The vendor having its unblemished one-sided spectacular praise pieces, the publisher getting paid spectacularly well, despite risking losing all credibility with its readers.<\/p>\n

We had the opportunity to talk to some vendor executives recently to get their experience working of the strategy behind Forbes\u2019 BrandVoice\u2026.<\/p>\n

HfS:\u00a0<\/strong> Does Forbes promise to make the sponsored content appear independent?<\/em><\/p>\n

Potential Advertiser:<\/strong> No, they don’t promise to make their content appear independent. \u00a0They position it as another marketing\u00a0channel\u00a0where editorial and advertorial co-mingle<\/em> and co-exist. \u00a0They are, in fact, quite\u00a0proud\u00a0of the hits BrandVoice articles get relative to straight editorial. \u00a0They like that blending of content.<\/p>\n

HfS:<\/strong> Does Forbes have specific writing\/content guidelines – and how much do their own staff shape the content?<\/em><\/p>\n

Potential Advertiser:<\/strong> They do\u00a0have\u00a0specific writing and content guidelines, yet there is no vetting process whatsoever. \u00a0Vendors can publish anything through the WordPress site. \u00a0I get the impression that only after someone calls out an\u00a0egregious\u00a0post will they do anything. \u00a0There is no filter, no vetting, vendors can post anything they want. \u00a0In the case of using their content bureau, things are different, however\u00a0– they do screen their own<\/em>\u00a0content. \u00a0It is very much like the Wild West, that’s why Oracle and co. can get away with such blatant advertorials.<\/p>\n

Key facts* about Forbes BrandVoice, relayed to HfS:<\/em><\/p>\n