New media agency group seeking to ‘protect journalism’ to drive value for advertisers
Bass
A newly-formed group comprised of media agency executives will work to establish what is and is not “premium content”, as it looks to play a role in making advertisers understand the importance of quality journalism.
The new group is an amalgam of two committees from the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) which represents publishers and Media Federation of Australia (MFA), which represents media buyers, with the six month old IAB Agency Advisory Board merging with the MFA’s Interactive Committee in a move which aimed at cutting overlap.
The new merged group will be called the IAB-MFA Agency Advisory Group (IMAAG) and will be chaired by GroupM chief investment and intelligence officer Danny Bass who told Mumbrella the new body would establish a new code of conduct to help the fight against click fraud and ensure brand safety, and have a role in protecting journalism.
Deck chairs on the Titanic (and the Titanic is not a ship full of journalists, it’s a ship full of media agencies and media organisations who can’t adapt).
Journalism doesn’t need saving, journalism is fine.
Brand safety? The only thing being protected here is the cosy relationship between media agencies and the traditional media companies.
“There is also the question of what can we as an industry do to protect journalism [from our industry].”
Priceless.
Does this mean the newly formed “Brand Safety Council is defunct ?
Something needs to be done. Journos are screwed at this rate and we can already see them evolving into marketers themselves. Buzzfeed and native are just the beginning of the end. Agencies should care, because if journo’s become marketers, there isn’t much room for the agencies.
Unfortunately that also means content quality degradation.
So what might be the future of the sites that don’t fall into the holy trinity of “premium websites”? Reading between the lines, I can see even more downward pressure on rates from agencies for those sites. The race to the bottom has been on for years, perhaps Bass should be look at who’s been propagating that?
Yet more “journalism must be saved” Antediluvianism that ignores the fact that readers LOVE the trash they’re being served. At least if the rate they click on it is any guide.
It would be lovely if Australia were a nation in which lots of people consume thoughtful features about policy and The New Yorker.
We aren’t.
There isn’t such a nation.
So, let’s get this right. The agencies who have been turning their back on journalistic content (unless they can re-purpose it for their own gain as ‘Native’), the same media agency people who are only concerned with unsustainably low CPMs and publisher rebates, are going to ride to the rescue of journalism?
Yeah, right! Got it.
I can no longer take this industry seriously..
Love how this comes from Group M, an agency group that is known to buy the cheapest stuff in market and only want the cheapest rates… not the best solutions for their clients. Very hypocritical…..
Agree with “that’s it”. This is beyond odd.
@Observer – I think you will find its clients that want the cheapest rates for premium stuff. Ever been in a pitch lately? Always a huge section on price & trading – and what discount to rack rate you can get for premium content. And ironically the bigger the client (meaning the more money they have to play with), the cheaper they want it
Good luck in telling P&G that they have to pay a reasonable rate for their advertising Group M people…