London Shamen Blog: In defence of content marketing

My former colleague at the FT Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson has written a much-shared and much-discussed piece on the rise and rise of content marketing, which you can read here.

While I believe Edge (as he is universally known) has written a balanced article that examines all aspects of paid content and the corporate production of journalism, his choice of words (a sample: blurred lines, chutzpah, profound implications, spoonfeeding) makes it clear that in his view, corporate paid-for editorial is basically a bad and dangerous thing.

While I agree wholeheartedly with his points about the need for transparency and impartial journalism, naturally I disagree with the overall impression that content marketing is a cause for alarm, and I’ve written this detailed response for the Holmes Report.

Readers are becoming less and less interested in where the content they want to read is published. They are not stupid – if an article or video is published on a company’s own website, they will bear that in mind while reading or watching. If the content is good enough, they will carry on reading or watching and then share it with others.