The paper, according to a news release, "will poll Americans about subjects ranging from how they'd describe the American Dream to how much they value leisure time. Armed with the results of the polling, USA Today reporters will search for individuals and communities that have excelled in promoting programs that enhance key values as identified by the polls."
Two things immediately caught my attention. The series, scheduled to run through early March, has a single sponsor: automaker Toyota. This comes as the paper strives to more tightly unite its advertising and editorial content following a recent reorganization to boost advertising revenue. That raises an ethical red flag, because it could result in advertisers dictating editorial content.
Fortunately, that's not the case in today's first installment. The stories and an accompanying video are straight-up: The American Dream isn't limited to buying Toyota products, it seems.
If that sounds familiar, it is. Last spring, USAT launched a branding campaign carrying the exact same tagline. Indeed, "What America Wants'' remains an integral part of the paper's online marketing materials. It seems unlikely this is merely a coincidence. The question: What's to be gained?
Related: USAT's growing online "verticals" such as Your Life provide "new integration opportunities for advertisers."
Marketing experts, start your engines! Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
On a somewhat related note: Why does USAT continue to limit distribution of its videos -- like the one in today's first series' installment -- by not including embeddable software code within its video players?
ReplyDeleteHad that been included, I would have included today's very good video within this post.
Jim:
ReplyDeleteIt's all about vertical selling. Remember Jeep? I mentioned then that we'd have stories about Jeeps alongside ads of Jeeps.
Might be subtle, but Toyota will get something for its "sponsorship." The velocity and frequency of ads running as news copy will be shocking over the next six months.
What America wants is honest journalism.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone at Gannett bother to raise the question about whether this looks like Toyota is running the newsroom?
My hometown Gannett newspaper did its annual inane black Friday shopping story as the centerpiece on Page 1A Sunday. They quoted one TV and electronics store owner extensively throughout, and gave Target two paragraphs. The TV store had a full-page ad inside the A section. You connect the dots. ...
ReplyDeleteI've also stumbled across USAT's definition of online content "verticals" like the recently launched Your Life site. Among several features, they offer advertisers "new integration opportunities."
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Your Life, there's one for travel, plus three more scheduled for 2011 launches devoted to personal finance, personal technology, and entertainment.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIt's so much fun racking the dinosaur journalists wring their hands and rip their clothing. The world changed and you didn't. Bloggers have eaten your lunch and you can't stand it. I am sorry. Make money stay in business. Do it your way and give people crap they don't want to read, go out of business. The NY Times had to borrow millions to stay in business. Go work for them if you think they have a bright future using your model. If a Jeep wrap saves our jobs....go wrap it Mr Hunke. Now go back to your Lou Grant reruns and remember the good old days when you showed open sustain for your non news colleagues.
ReplyDelete5:15 p.m.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "open sustain?" Is that the new, modern, save our lives journalism? No thanks.
Ooooh whitty comeback 5:20.
ReplyDeleteUhh, do bloggers blog full time or do they have other jobs. If they DO blog full time, what's putting beans on the table there, Sparky?
ReplyDeleteOversimplification, sure. But you get the idea.
Am I the only one who finds it a little strange to have a foreign company sponsoring a series on the American dream in a U.S. paper? Wouldn't it have been better to get Ford to sponsor this?
ReplyDeleteToyota did a lot of self-inflicted damage to its image in the last couple years, especially in the U.S. Now it's spending megabucks to rebuild it. Toyota probably proposed this - not USAT - as part of a master image campaign: "Need feel-good reflections on American values in iconic wide-reach media brand." Check.
ReplyDeleteFord don't need this association. Toyota does.
I dunno about that. I suspect USAT approached Toyota after the series was developed. But it would be interesting to get more details.
ReplyDelete8:10 a little geography lesson. Most Toyotas sold in America are made in America. Americans build those cars
ReplyDelete8:26 is right on the money.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe that someone fell for that old fraud about Toyotas and other foreign cars being made in America.
ReplyDeleteAmericans may put the last screws in the chasis to put them together, but they are all "made" overseas.
Cars are "made" at the end of a prolonged process that involves years of development work by well-paid engineers, designers and finance people. All the engine parts, suspension elements, electrical systems, fuel pumps, engines, brakes, etc. are "made" in this process, which is many times more expensive than mere assembly. And, yes, Japanese cars are made in Japan, Korean cars made in Korea and American cars made in America. American engineers and scientists are not involved in any way in developing Japanese, Korean or German cars. Nor are the foreign rivals involved in making U.S. cars.
These foreign made cars may be assembled in the United States, but that doesn't mean they were made here. Overseas plants provide the parts, but yes they are pieced together by Americans. The Mazdas screwed together in Thailand are exactly the same as those screwed together in the United States.
And when the cars are sold in U.S. showrooms, where do you think the profits go? Yes, they are sent to Japan, Germany or Korea where the cars were developed.
9:23 great speech. Tell that to the hard working American receiving a paycheck for "putting" those cars together. U get a paycheck I don't care who signs it. Nice speech. Thanks for stopping in President Obama
ReplyDeleteI don't care where the cars are made. I just care about whether I have a job next year so I can make the payments on them.
ReplyDeleteBack to the main topic--sponsoring and "integration". I'd love more details. WERE there stories about Jeeps alongside the Jeep wraps? Ultimately, I want to know how it'll impact my work.
xxxx I want to know how it'll impact my work xxx Well, you can start by forgetting to report the National Transportation Safety Commission's conclusions about the problems with brakes on Toyota cars. What you need to know is that Toyota makes the safest car in America, and has a much better record than any U.S.-made car. You need to start reporting on the problems of U.S. manufacturers of cars, from the larding of the workplace by unionized contracts, lavishly expensive health and retirement benefits, and the all the errors made on Detroit assembly lines. If you do your job correctly, you will continue to get your paycheck.
ReplyDeleteI know this is supposedly different. But is it THAT different?
ReplyDeleteAdvertise on Gannett Blog
Place your message in front of 15,000 news industry professionals viewing 225,000 pages monthly. The leaderboard ad position at the top of every page is now available for just $150 weekly. Easy ordering.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJim: I disagree with your statement that Toyota didn't dictate editorial content in today's story. It might have had a big influence. It's certainly true that the Cauchon story was decent journalism, but there are other considerations. For example, did Toyota have a voice in or veto power over choosing the poll questions? Did the automaker get to approve the size and placement of the logo in the story? Same question about the front page promo? Unfortunately, I don't expect honest answers to any of these questions from Hunke, Hillkirk and Weiss, whom seem hell-bent on finding ways to raise money no matter the cost to USAT's remaining credibility.
ReplyDeleteNo stories about Jeep ran with the Jeep wraps. I know that's probably disappointing to you considering the debate here today.
ReplyDelete11:01 a.m.: It's highly likely that Toyota got approval on the size of its logo and its proximity to the series logo. That wouldn't be especially surprising, however; advertisers always choose size/proximity to editorial copy. (The exception, I suppose, are remnant ad positions; someone else may want to weigh in on that, however.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time USAT has embedded advertising matter so deeply in editorial; I recall seeing examples of that toward the end of my 2000-2007 tenure there.
>>>Tell that to the hard working American receiving a paycheck for "putting" those cars together. U get a paycheck I don't care who signs it. Nice speech. Thanks for stopping in President Obama<<<
ReplyDelete---
What crack are you on? Obama helped Detroit automakers keep their jobs and now their companies are making a profit.
I work at USAT. I dont have that much of a problem separating entertainment from content. The problem I have is if it spills over to News. Features, Sports, even Money. Let them do all the stupid tie-ins and cross promotions they want. If it sells ads, fine. The lines have been blurred for readers and TV viewers for some time. When the Chilean mine disaster is influenced by GM, we're in a world of hurt. The powers running News already have trouble defining what and how to cover things. When some nimrod from the business side suggests we cover something breaking because they can sell ads against it, I'm out of here.
ReplyDeleteUSA Today lost its soul the day it started forcing out many of the people who built and upheld the integrity of the brand. Getting treated like garbage after 10, 15 or 20 years of service not only creates some bad karma but it also sends a clear message to those who remain behind and to talented people who might have otherwise wanted to work at the nation's newspaper. Word spreads quickly in this business and I can tell you that USAT's rep is in the toilet at the seminars and conferences I've attended in the last 2-3 years. I honestly can't imagine why anyone with any talent or ethics would want to work at USAT or most any other newspaper these days. I think papers like USAT, that have shot themselves in the foot by treating employees so badly, will have an extremely difficult time producing respected products in the next decade or two.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, newspapers (even ones with vibrant websites) are now seen as antiquated, undesirable places to work, not because they tend to pay zilch or force people to work 24/7 -- those conditions have always existed -- but because there is no reward/loyalty for doing so. Newspaper companies like Gannett sent a message to future generations during all the layoffs that working at a newspaper is a risky proposition for anyone looking for any degree of job stability. And after spending five or six figures on a college education, well, it seems doubtful that many people would want to work in a ruthless, unethical, low-paying sweat factory like USA Today.
No matter how nice the building, USA Today is a dismal and dysfunctional mess. J-schools are aware of it. Advertising professional know it. Marketing and HR people have similar opinions. USAT has not done a good job of damage control and will pay a severe price for that for years to come.