Last month we shared our first impressions of "brand journalism," a would-be trend in marketing and journalism. (Note especially Mark Ragan's thorough and thoughtful contribution, in the comments section.)
Meanwhile, the fine folks at my publisher McMurry.com have posted my snarling, devastating mockery of the idea as "more silly than sinister."
We all remember where we were when we first heard the term “brand journalism.”
No we don’t, because the first time we heard those words, they beaded on our brains like so many other foolish notions that caffeine-crazed or boozy marketing people think up in manic desperation to justify to their clients or to their God what they’re trying this time.
And then, right next to it at McMurry.com, they ran my passionate defense of the brand journalism, as "the simultaneous solution to marketing problems and stubborn social ills":
Brand journalism will reward so many good things that business so often runs from: plain talk, human vulnerability, public listening …. And if a transparent, humanistic, journalistic ethic becomes the norm in marketing, companies that practice it will gain ground on or even kill competitors less generous of spirit and big-minded.
And speaking of big-minded: I do feel like giving props to McMurry for making room for such opposing opinions on the corporate website, which many organizations feel compelled to make into airless sanctums of corporate wisdom.
My little dueling editorials aren't quite brand journalism, I reckon.
But they'll have to do have to do until brand journalism gets here.