Influence of Ad Spending on Media Coverage in Magazines
Diego Rinallo and Suman Basuroy (“Does Advertising Spending Influence Media Coverage of the Advertiser?”) analyze this very important issue in the November 2009 issue of Journal of Marketing. Their analysis offers the rare research opportunity to either validate or reject the widespread presumption that editorial content and advertising content are domains that are independent of each other. Their results indicate that there is indeed a strong positive influence of advertising spending on media coverage in consumer magazines. Interestingly, the authors also find that the extent of this media coverage influence on a publisher is greater when there is higher dependence for advertising revenues on a specific industry. In addition, the media coverage awarded by peer magazines appears to influence coverage decisions for any given publisher.
The authors reject the traditional view that publicity messages are unpaid. While I agree that their results appear to support that argument, another interpretation that I provide below deserves consideration. In a research article published more than a decade ago (Balasubramanian, Journal of Advertising, December 1994), I noted the impressive growth of a new category of marketing messages (labeled “hybrid messages”) that are paid for but that masquerade as editorial content because they do not identify the sponsor. The relevant point here is that hybrid messages are so called because they retain only desirable characteristics from advertising and publicity messages. Let me explain this in some detail next.
By definition, advertising messages are paid for and identify the sponsor, while publicity messages are not paid for and do not identify the sponsor. If a message is paid for, the sponsor benefits by being able to control the message; note that this advantage disappears if the message is not paid for. If a message does not identify the sponsor, it appears credible to the intended audience because they process it as editorial content (note again that this benefit vanishes for messages that identify the sponsor; in other words, more “defensive” processing often characterizes exposure to commercial content in which the sponsor is identified). Therefore, hybrid messages combine the advantages of both advertising (the paid for–control characteristic) and publicity (not identifying the sponsor and thereby imparting greater message credibility). Finally, I define several classes of hybrid messages ranging from product placements and infomercials to product tie-ins and masked messages.
So the alternative interpretation here could be that the media coverage Rinallo and Basuroy describe in their article does not represent publicity in its purest form as previously defined; instead, such coverage may be more accurately characterized as hybrid messages. More specifically, instead of arguing that publicity messages are not unpaid, it may be more accurate to advance the view that publicity messages have morphed into or are being replaced by the new class of hybrid messages that is actually “paid for.”
I applaud Rinallo and Basuroy for investigating several empirical issues. For example, they note that effects of corporate advertising spending influence coverage in both Europe and the U.S. Their research is timely and important and is likely to trigger several other research questions in future, such as the following:
(1) Is editorial independence stronger in the news domain (e.g., newspapers) than in the general interest domain (e.g., consumer magazines)?
(2) Is there evidence that this positive influence of ad spending on media coverage has increased over time? and
(3) Are there natural limits to this influence—that is, is there a tipping point after which increasing media coverage is detrimental to the interests of both the advertiser and the publisher, just because the consumers will wise up to this game.
As always, I look forward to a healthy debate on this interesting article.
Siva K. Balasubramanian, Journal of Marketing Web site editor
Comments
The practices we investigated in our study can be certainly thought of as forms of hybrid messages arguably more persuasive than advertising as their sources appear to be independent third parties instead of self-interested advertisers. By exposing readers to product-related information both in advertisements and editorial content, marketers could even obtain superior performances as publicity may magnify the impact of advertising on brand awaness and image. Our study is certainly only a first step in investigating broader issues of managerial relevance, such as those raised by Siva Balasubramanian in his introductory remarks. There might be various country-, industry-, media- and advertiser-specific factors predicting or moderating the degree of advertiser influence over editorial content, and it would certainly be interesting to evaluate whether editorial independence is increasing or decreasing. Arguably, with the current crisis-induced generalized reduction in advertising spending in most countries, media organizations may be more willing to please their advertisers than in the past.
When we wrote our paper, we hoped to generate a healthy debate on the topic. We realized, of course, that the specific practice we investigated, that is the influence of advertising spending on media content in consumer magazines, also has ethical and public policy implications. However, we were very insecure about the possible reactions of the Journal of Marketing readership. Was lack of marketing research on the topic a sign of the fact that we were dealing with a ‘taboo’ issue? Would our research findings be interpreted as a critique to current business practices?
Arguably, marketers are increasingly integrating in their communication mix instruments that exploit consumer reliance on non-commercial sources of information. Many specialized communication agencies now exist whose personnel, acting as consumers, circulates positive word of mouth about brands and products in both online and offline environments. The anonymity offered by the Internet has facilitated enormously the diffusion of hybrid messages. Are these practices effective or likely to generate consumer distrust? What are their ethical implications? We would like to exchange opinions on these and related issues from practitioners and fellow researchers alike.
Posted by: Diego Rinallo | January 19, 2010 4:58 AM