Commentary

The Return Of The VNR

by Joe Mandese , September 9, 2015

It’s official, we have completely slipped off the slippery content slope.

On Tuesday, I got pitched by Al Roker Entertainment and press release distributor Business Wire for a story about a deal they did to develop and distribute “compelling video content” spotlighting Business Wire’s “trending news announcements.” In other words, they’re going to try to use video to make press releases look like news or entertainment programming.

Some people might call that “native” advertising. Others might call it content marketing. Personally, I consider it deceptive. Even if there is some form of disclosure associated with the videos the partnership distributes it is likely to confuse, if not deceive some consumers because of the nature of video media.

This is not a new issue. About a decade ago, Congress looked at the issue of what was then called corporate “video news releases” and the Federal Trade Commission warned TV stations against running them without clear and abundant disclosures that they were paid content.

But even when they are publicly disclosed, corporate videos frequently create confusion in the eyes and minds of the people viewing it. Years before the VNR issue exploded, public relations researcher Mark Weiner did some research, which found that when press release distribution services like Business Wire and PR Newswire distributed their content online average consumers couldn’t tell the difference between then and journalistic newswires like the Associated Press or UPI.

As far as I know, Wiener, who is now CEO of PRIME Research, has not replicated that study in the current era of native advertising and sponsored content, but I wouldn’t be surprised that most people have a hard time distinguishing between video news releases and bona fide video journalism.

But ten years after Congress and the FCC weighed in on VNRs, they may be back again -- in a decidedly less regulated environment of social media and content marketing channels.

4 comments about "The Return Of The VNR".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Geoff Simon from SSPR, September 9, 2015 at 7:19 p.m.
Infomercials for the social media age.
Reply

Albert Maruggi from Give It A Think, September 9, 2015 at 11:22 p.m.

Joe, oh Joe what have you done to me. This post makes it official I am old. I was in the broadcast news trenches at the beginning of the VNR, saw its rise and fall. Watched as I traded 1000 foot TV antennas for a broadband modem as a distribution medium for my videos and now you tell me the VNR is making a come back. That officially makes me old. : )

For the most part the printed pages you see at the grocery store checkout have, more or less become digital fodder for eye-grabbing stories and websites. A new version of a VNR isn't going to make the world a worse place, just another headline to sift through.

mark weiner from PRIME Research, September 10, 2015 at 11:19 a.m.

Joe...you of excellent memory.

One day we may reflect back to a time when journalism was credible, journalists were trusted and the news was good for building strong minds and bodies. Unfortunately, developments like Al Roker Entertainmet undermine the credibility, trust and societal benefit that we Americans entrust to the news media and guarantee through the constitution. (Not to mention how our taxpayer dollars underwrite FCC licenses). The day will come -- maybe five years or maybe ten -- when journalistic media will no longer deserve our esteem as a source of righteous information and opinion. And then what of the news business? What of advertising? And what of public relations? The foundation for our traditional media-based model offers quality content to offset the antipathy towards most media marketing. Once the value equation is lost, so goes a major swatch of fabric from our lives and livelihoods.

mike Bako from D S Simon, September 10, 2015 at 3:26 p.m.

Thanks for the article. I just wanted to clarify one error and also add perspective. The Congressional hearings were not about “Corporate VNRs” but about “Government VNRs.” The specific VNR in question was produced by the Bush Administration about the new prescription drug law, and had not been labeled as government content. Our CEO Doug Simon was an expert witness at the hearings.

You are correct that it does create confusion when a journalist crosses the line to being a hired gun and does not clearly disclose their role. This may be less of a concern with Al Roker as I don’t even trust him about the weather, but it is actually against the law. The FTC spokesperson guidelines require “clear and conspicuous disclosure” by the spokesperson during television interviews and online video if they have received something of value from a third party whom they represent.

Journalists are more aware of this than you might expect. In the D S Simon 2015 Media InfluencerReport, we found 69% of journalists more likely to use content that includes proper disclosure. The nature of communications has changed so much that brands and non-profits need to have their own voice across multiple platforms. Additionally, there is a lot of information about any content, with differing opinions, one click away to keep people informed. When laws are followed and disclosure is “clear and conspicuous,” viewers are smart enough to make intelligent decisions about what they are seeing.