The Americana and roots music authority

Advertorials on No Depression

An Open letter to The No Depression community,

Having had a post* deleted for being a 'glorified ad' ( No Depression's Kim made a fair point in an email explaining ND's decision to axe the post:

"we try to keep the blogs free of things that look like glorified ads. Due to the frequency with which people post things like this, if we allowed everyone to post stuff like this, we'd quickly be overrun with artists and bands just pushing themselves in the blogs, rather than thoughtful reviews, articles, commentary, recommendations, and other discourse.")

I've been looking through the blogs and a lot of them look like press releases from PR companies this one is pure blurb.Another example is Hearth which describes itself as a" brand-spankin-new roots music promotion agency"It's a P.R. Company! Are these companies buying space? I've been working in Journalism for 20 years and I know an advertorial when I see it. By no stretch of the imagination is a PR agency involved in an unbiased discourse about country and roots music which is, in my eyes what a blogging community should be.

If they are paying why haven't I been offered to opportunity to pay for editorial space? (I'm not talking about banner that's a straight forward paid ad.)

What gives No Dep?

I'd appreciate discussion on the matter

Neville Elder

This forum post is also a blog post

* The content of my Blog post is available, legally, on my profile for my band 'Thee Shambels' should to wish to examine it. I don't dispute it's an Ad and won't link to it to avoid charges of reposting a deleted post

I'd appreciate discussion on the matter

Neville Elder

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hearth Music on April 6, 2011 at 10:15pm

I can't really speak for No Depression, but I know that they take their featured content really seriously and they're NOT into paid editorial content. You mention my company, Hearth Music, and we are indeed a promotion company. But we're clear to point out when we're writing about a band we're being paid to promote, and we don't do this very often (we try to avoid it). In the few instances we've done this, we've worked to write about a different aspect of the band than our actual promotional work. All the other reviews you see from us are bands that we like, but are NOT actively working with. While we may end up working with some of these in the future (who knows!), we aren't using our space to present paid editorial content. Our recent reviews on Zoe Muth, The Cave Singers, Matthew Byrne, and Alela Diane are just fan-blogs. We're not beind paid by any of them. Even in our most recent post about the blog American Standard Time, we clearly stated that we also write for that blog, so are biased. The roots music world is just too small to avoid conflicts of interest, so we've chosen to be as honest and up-front as we can. Ultimately, we'd rather the music spoke for itself, but with all the noise in today's marketplace, we've all gotta help spread the word about our favorite artists.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hearth Music on April 6, 2011 at 10:29pm

We're also looking at a new world of journalism. As small, independent music communities become more powerful and mainstream, and as music journalists and publications continue to fold, there's a real divide between the old model of music critic and the new model of music blogger/cheerleader. While I don't think it's true that PR companies are paying for content here or anywhere (except Fox News, maybe), we are seeing that journalism is becoming more and more biased as people write about their friends and their favorite bands rather than actively critiquing a band.

Here are two articles in the Seattle press that encapsulate this debate.

Article 1:

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/2011/03/music_journalism_gets...

Response:

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/2011/03/haters_gonna_hate_cri...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neville Elder on April 6, 2011 at 10:39pm

Well, that's a good point "The roots music world is just too small to avoid conflicts of interest" and I appreciate your candour - But your not going to write a bad review about one of your artists are you? How can we as fans get a sense of the product without independent review? It's an old, old argument (as you point out in your links - thanks for that) but one thing is new it is easier to go straight to the music these days which makes the battle to wade through skewed music journo/PR bollocks a bit less of an issue.. the job of PR and advertising these days is much more about raising awareness than persuasion but... I digress...

There's nothing wrong with PR firms or with paid content (as long as it's declared - as you say yours is, thankyou!) But what I don't understand is how is an obvious ad (mine!) is worthy of the spike when a long winded puff piece (And I'm not talking about any Hearth articles) gets the thumbs up. if there's no payola going on which does seem unlikely - after all I can't imagine the returns are large enough incentive to warrant a slush fund of any significance! - It smacks of double standards and favoritism print it all or spike the lot - that's what I say

Publish and be damned!

It's all in the spirit of the thing you know?

Neville Elder

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neville Elder on April 6, 2011 at 10:49pm

"We're also looking at a new world of journalism"

Oh yes! So true! And as the old order collapses and submits — Murdoch and the New York Times now retreating behind their "pay walls" — amateur journalism such as examimer.com - settles in for the siege. Unqualified unsubstantiated opinion masquerades as reporting. So basically the internet has caught up with music journalism then! My God the garbage I read in the NME in the eighties is no different from half the crap on music forums today.

Neville Elder

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hearth Music on April 6, 2011 at 11:44pm

Well, I hope No Depression and others get involved in this conversation. It's good to be talking about these issues that affect all of us. It used to be that the only way to check out an artist was to go to the record store and ask to sample it, or to read the reviews. Now that music is so easily accessible, it's easy to listen for yourself and to form your own opionions. I've staked my reputation on the artists I write about, rather than my own jourrnalistic credentials (I have none!). Most people read internet content critically, so I know that the artists I'm writing about better be good enough that the reader will agree with what I'm saying. And as for writing bad reviews, I try to stay away from that. Too small a world. Plus it's no fun to pick on the little guys and gals. I'd rather write a bad review about Rihanna than about a local band.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neville Elder on April 7, 2011 at 6:55am

Rihanna has her merits.. : )

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Darius Rips on April 7, 2011 at 6:58am

I am a music blogger, and my blog entires here are reposts of material from my home blog. They are "advertorials", in the sense that I hope they will inspire people to take a look at the blog itself, but I am not compensated in any way, except for the fact that artists and promoters send me albums for consideration. Album reviews are a regular feature on my blog, and you will never read a bad review there. Why? Simple. If I don't like it, why would I bother to review it at all? I used to feel that I had to include at least a small negative statement in each review to enhance my credibility. But now I realize that the internet changes everything. My blog is mine; I don't get albums assigned to me, as I might at a newspaper or magazine, so I can limit myself to music that I like without reservation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neville Elder on April 7, 2011 at 7:38am

FYI: an advertorial, traditionally, is paid editorial space. i.e. not a banner ad but an advertisement masquerading as a review or comment. (if payment not declared "e.g. paid advertisement" or "compensated spokesperson" it is completely unethical and in some place illegal).

As blogger you have complete control you are your own editor. That's the beauty of blogging you write about what you like. In print journalism you'd have an editor assigning you stuff to review and your critical knowledge and your taste would attract readers and create a following by what you do and don't like. That's why Philip Sharr Murray and Lester Bangs became famous.

I don't think anyone going to be followed very closely if they only write about what they like - I mean all I'd have to do I see what you'd reviewed to know what you liked - I wouldn't have to read it. That doesn't mean you opinion is of no use - far from it knowing the stuff you like would give me an idea of what I might like, but I probably wouldn't bother to read the review. Critical analysis is vital to form a voice in journalism blogging or in print.

Darius, I read your blog before I wrote this and I think its smart and it gives me an idea of what I might like but you also give constructive criticism too, or write about areas of the music that could be better - that's a voice as far as I'm concerned. But the key to any of this is in THE WRITING!

I'm quoting him out of context but as Gordon Lish says: "Don't have stories; have sentences."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack on April 7, 2011 at 8:00am

Neville, having participated (reading, commenting, very occasional writing) in this site for a few years now, it's my observation that Kyla and Kim generally let the community self regulate content, but they do keep the site gently focused on fan appreciation, discussion, trading ideas, reviews, and periodic contests. Few people here are interested in reading a plethora of press releases and (self) promotion. Kim took the time to explain her rationale for deleting your piece because she and Kyla want to encourage participation within the loose aforementioned parameters. I think they walk that subtle fine line pretty consistently and with a light hand, which is not to say flawlessly.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neville Elder on April 7, 2011 at 8:16am

My blogpost was as ad. It should have been deleted within those boundaries you mention. I posted because I saw others and of course that's where the defense nobody's perfect comes in : ) it is clearly a 'subtle fine line". But I'm glad my opening post caused some discussion.

Thanks Jack