If you still even subscribe to your local newspaper, you’ve probably noticed that it’s getting thinner and thinner. What once would have passed for a phone book is now, at best, a placemat. Even if you consume your news online, news organizations are having a harder time keeping reporters on staff as they struggle to cover overhead and stay afloat.
So it’s perhaps not a surprise that some organizations are taking matters into their own hands, as the Los Angeles Kings hockey team did earlier this week. According to the New York Times, the team has hired a reporter to write (autonomously) for its Web site. I encourage you to read the full article and noodle on it for a bit.
Is it any different than providing your own corporate content?
I’ve struggled internally with whether this approach is good, bad or even sustainable. Obviously the Kings recognized that its fan base is hungry for news but that traditional outlets no longer have the means to provide it. So the Kings have decided to create news for themselves.
Initially, this may not appear any different than having an internal communications person develop and produce news stories for an organization. It reminds me a bit of what Lee Aase has been doing at Mayo Clinic: Don’t just pitch the media, BE the media.
However, that’s not exactly what’s happening here. Rich Hammond is not employed by the Kings to tout the company line and craft messages that are complimentary to the organization. He supposedly has complete editorial control over the content. Essentially he’s a “sponsored reporter.”
But I question how successful this approach can be. If Hammond’s stories are too complimentary or give the Kings a pass too frequently, will readers write him off as “working for the man” and simply regurgitating the party line?
Could you square off against the organization that’s your livelihood?
Is he really going to feel comfortable taking a hard tack against the organization that provides his paycheck each week? What happens if Hammond uncovers evidence of cheating, doping or other foul play within the organization? Will readers trust that he’s reporting the full story and not covering up details at the behest of the organization that pays him?
The New York Times piece suggests that readers are smart enough to distinguish between reporting and public relations. I don’t doubt that’s true, but I do wonder if it will mean that Hammond’s “reporting” is slightly less forceful than it would have been at an indpendent news organization. Hammond himself claims he’ll continue to write just as he would if he were a reporter.
It’s one thing for a company to internally produce content (blog posts, news releases, video, podcasts, etc.). Readers know that this content specifically comes from within the organization and can judge for themselves how much “messaging” is included in this content.
But in the case of the LA Kings, that line becomes blurred. Hammond isn’t strictly a corporate communications professional working with the best intrests of the organization in mind, but he’s also not strictly a reporter who doesn’t rely on the organization he covers to pay his bills and feed his family.
What do you think about this hybrid model? Will readers trust it – or even be able to distinguish reporting from PR? Could it work for certain types of organizations but not others?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments – I’m still working this one out…
