Buzzfeed has leaked an internal report from the New York Times.
I was struck by this passage:
“The very first step … should be a deliberate push to abandon our current metaphors of choice — ‘The Wall’ and ‘Church and State’ — which project an enduring need for division. Increased collaboration, done right, does not present any threat to our values of journalistic independence,” the report says. […]
“It’s the old world where the publisher and the editor work together,” senior editor Sam Sifton, who worked on the cooking project, told the report’s authors. “It’s not lions lying down with lambs. It’s a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship.”
I just finished working a project for Netflix and Wired, and I got to see collaboration up close.
Certainly, this project represents a repudiation of the old “church and state” distinction. The “state” called Netflix paid for content that appeared in the “church” called Wired. (And I wrote the “copy.”)
Some people will accept this as the kind of break-through that Jonah Peretti of Buzzfeed has been arguing for for some time. Others will decry it as the invasion of capital into journalism. Still others (AdAge’s Michael Sebastian, to be exact) suggested that this story might give us a glimpse of the future in some of the ways that NYT’s Snowfall did.
But there is an anthropological observation to make, and that is none of us (and by “us,” I mean Netflix, Conde Nast and me) appeared to be looking to make this content shill for the sponsor. More to the point, we were not conflating church and state. If anything we were being at least as fastidious as the old order.
None of us was looking to amp up the pitch. No one said, “Grant, can you dial up the emphasis on Netflix, please.” In fact, the only editorial intervention was the removal of the names of shows that I had used to illustrate the power of the new TV, and this was occasioned by the fact that non-Netflix properties did not want to have their shows appear in a piece sponsored by Netflix.
Why were we being so fastidious? I think there is a simple marketing answer here. Any marketing exercise that shills now actually diminishes the power of the communication. Consumers just dial that stuff out.
We have entered a new era in which viewers, consumers take intelligence and imagination as the necessary condition for their attention. Shilling is clumsy and overbearing. It disqualifies itself.
This is what happens when popular culture, driven by commerce, becomes culture plain and simple. It has to stop acting like a shilling exercise, or suffer the consequences…and these are immediately exclusion from readerly interest.
“Oh, it’s only an ad. Next!”
The new rule of marketing says you can’t buy your way into people’s lives. If you make marketing with scant regard for the way this marketing draws on and contributes to culture, you provoke an instantaneous push back from the consumer.
This must qualify as good news. Even as the “grey lady” (aka NYT) wonders whether she can risk the conflation of church and state, the world of marketing is finding that it is obliged to be fastidious. Whew.
Thanks Rick Liebling for the head’s up.