Contributed Content: A Good or Bad Trend for Media?

I've been a professional writer since 1993, when I got my first editorial job at a small
local newspaper in Colorado. Since then I've worked in staff roles at trade and business magazines such as CIO and The Industry Standard, and as a freelancer for websites, magazines and companies. I also had a stint at Microsoft in a content role. So I've been on both sides of the fence: journalism and corporate marketing. In the last few years I've been almost strictly corporate, writing white papers and articles for corporate-sponsored sites and doing some PR. Lately, there's been some brewing debate about the concept of corporate-contributed content.

Some people think the idea of allowing executives and other experts from industry write for independent media is a disturbing denigration of the field of journalism. Others say that it's simply the direction content is heading now -- with bloggers becoming journalists, journalists becoming bloggers, and everyone with something to say actively contributing to the broader bucket of knowledge that we consume every day from social media, traditional media, and corporate-sponsored sites.

I'm in the middle here. First of all, whether they will admit it or not, newspaper and magazine editors need content. The current ad-driven revenue models cannot support large editorial staffs any longer, nor even freelancers; I know this firsthand, since freelance rates have plummeted drastically over the past few years. If a news-oriented, relevant article idea is submitted, that fits a current need, editors are much more inclined to take it these days if they trust the source. The media organizations accepting contributed content are not just small trade rags, but top-tier publications such as Fortune and BusinessWeek.

But the media needs good content— discussions that are well-researched, cogent, objective, and provide fresh insights and value to readers. As long as that criteria is met -- I don't see the problem with an executive writing a blog post for a traditional media site. In the few occasions that I have helped write such articles of late, the company nor its products are mentioned in the article. And often, such pieces are clearly labeled as a viewpoint piece.

Now you still might disagree: independent authors are the only ones worthy of writing for independent media. Yet the tide is changing: economics are demanding the acquisition of cheaper forms of content. This is an opportunity, in my mind, for both media sites and companies. For media: an occasional contributed article is a way to expand editorial coverage on tight budgets with a fresh industry-driven viewpoint that a journalist can’t always convey. For companies: this is an opportunity to express your (hopefully respectable) opinions and drive thought leadership among your peers, colleagues and customers.

Of course there's a danger here: use of such articles requires, perhaps, more stringent editorial policies to weed out people with an agenda versus those offering a thoughtful discussion. And most would agree that the large majority of articles from independent media should still come from journalists, not companies. Story ideas and execution must be held to the same level of rigor, if not more, of that of the independent journalist. And it must be distinctly clear in the article credits who penned the piece.

If managed properly, corporate-written content is not evidence of the field of journalism rapidly going downhill into the dregs of promotional drivel. Many freelance writers with pedigreed backgrounds, in fact, write regularly for corporations along with their journalism pieces—because they must, to survive. On the same token, many news organizations will have to consider free, contributed, yet high-quality content from both leaders and industry to "fill the pages" so to speak.

But that's just my view. What's yours?