Tim Cook Free At Last

Uncategorized By November 2, 2014 Tags: 10 Comments


by Jean-Louis Gassée

Trading one’s privacy for the benefit of others isn’t an easy decision. Tim Cook just made such a swap, and the reverberations are beginning to be heard.

I’m happy and relieved that Tim Cook decided to “come out”, to renounce his cherished privacy and speak of his sexual orientation in plain terms rather than veiled, contorted misdirections. The unsaid is toxic.

If you haven’t done so already, please take the time to read Tim’s I’m Proud to Be Gay Businessweek editorial. Soberly written and discreetly moving, the piece concludes with:

“…I’m doing my part, however small, to help others. We pave the sunlit path toward justice together, brick by brick. This is my brick.”

It’s an admirable cause…but why should I care? Why does this 70-year old French-born American, a happily married-up father of three adult and inexplicably civilized children, care that Cook’s sexuality is now part of the public record?


First, I like and respect Cook for what he does, how he does it, and the way he handles his critics. For the past three years he’s been bombarded by questions about Apple’s slowing growth and the absent Next Big Thing, he’s been criticized for both hastening and impeding the inevitable commoditization of All Things Apple, he’s been called a liar by the NYT. Above all, he’s had to suffer the hidden — and occasionally blatant — accusation: You’re no Steve Jobs.

Throughout it all, Cook has displayed a preternatural calm in refusing to take the bait. In a previous Monday Note, I attributed his ability to deflect the cruel jibes to his having grown up “different” in Alabama. In his editorial, Cook confirms as much:

“It’s been tough and uncomfortable at times… [but] it’s also given me the skin of a rhinoceros, which comes in handy when you’re the CEO of Apple.”

Second, I’ve seen the ravages of homophobia at close range. A salient and personal example is the young gay architect of our first Palo Alto house. He quickly sensed he could be open with us, and would tease my wife Brigitte by showing her pictures of a glorious group of young bucks on vacation in Greece, adding, “What a loss for females”. But he also told us of his shame when he became aware of his desires in his adolescence, that he kneeled down every night to pray that his god would have mercy and make him “normal”. His parents rejected him and refused to keep in touch, even after the HIV virus made him perilously sick.

One morning when we were driving to his place in San Francisco to deliver a painting Brigitte had made for him, his partner called and told us not to come. Our friend had just passed away, still unaccepted by his parents.

Another personal example. A local therapist, a gay Buddhist, told me he couldn’t work as an M.D. in his native Caracas because the oppressive culture wouldn’t allow a gay man to so much as touch another man — even as a doctor. When he decided to tell his parents he was gay, he had to take them to a California mountain and mellow them with a certain herb before they would hear him out, and even then they didn’t entirely embrace his “choice” of sexuality.

Years of conversation with the fellow — who’s exactly my age — in a setting that facilitates honesty have brought empathy and insights that aren’t prevalent or even encouraged in the Parisian culture I come from, even in the supposedly liberated Left Bank that has been the home of lionized gay men such as Yves Saint-Laurent and Karl Lagerfeld. (I recommend Alicia Drake’s The Beautiful Fall. Lagerfeld, Saint Laurent, and Glorious Excess in 1970s Paris, a well-document and beautifully written parallel life history.)

This leads me to my third point, brought up by my wife. Gays have always been accepted in creative milieus. In many fields — fashion, certainly, but even in high tech — it’s almost expected that a “designer” is homosexual. Despite counter examples such as  Christian Lacroix, or our own Sir Jony, the stereotype endures.

According to the stereotype, it’s okay for “artistes” (I’ve learned the proper dismissive pronunciation, an elongated ‘eee’ after the first ’t’) to be unconventional, but serious business people must be straight. When I landed in Cupertino in 1985, I became acquainted with the creative <=> gay knee jerk. True-blue business people who didn’t like Apple took to calling us “fags” because of our “creative excesses” and disregard of the establishment.

What Brigitte likes most about Cook’s coming out is that it portends a liberation of the Creative Ghetto. Cook isn’t just outing himself has a gay executive; he’s declaring that being gay — or “creatively excessive”, or unconventional — is fully appropriate at the very top of American business. It helps, she concludes, that Apple’s CEO has made his statement from a position of strength, at a time when the company’s fortunes have reached a new peak and his leadership is more fully recognized than ever.

The ripples now start. Perhaps they’ll bring retroactive comfort to many execs such as former BP CEO John Browne who, in 2007, left his job in fear of a revelation about his lifestyle – and an affirmation to myriads of “different” people at the bottom of the pyramid.

Tim Cook brings hope of a more accepting world – both inside and outside of business. For this he must be happy, and so am I.

And, while I’m at it, Happy Birthday.



Science Fiction: Apple Makes A Toaster Fridge…

Uncategorized By October 27, 2014 12 Comments


…a supremely elegant one, naturally.

Plummeting iPad sales rekindle fantasies of a hybrid device, a version that adopts PC attributes, something like a better execution of the Microsoft Surface Pro concept. Or not.

For a company that has gained a well-deserved reputation for its genre-shifting — even genre-creating — devices, it might seem odd that these devices evolve relatively slowly, almost reluctantly, after they’ve been introduced.

It took five years for the iPhone to grow from its original 3.5” in 2007, to a doubled 326 ppi on the same screen size for the June 2010 iPhone 4, to a 5” screen for the 2012 iPhone 5.

In the meantime, Samsung’s 5.3” Galaxy Note, released in 2011, was quickly followed by a 5.5” phablet version. Not to be outdone, Sony’s 2013 Xperia Z Ultra reached 6.4” (160 mm). And nothing could match the growth spurt of the long-forgotten (and discontinued) Dell Streak: from 5” in 2010 to 7” a year later.

Moreover, Apple’s leadership has a reputation — again, well-deserved — of being dismissive of the notion that their inspired creations need to evolve. While dealing with the iPhone 4 antenna fracas at a specially convened press event in 2010, a feisty Steve Jobs took the opportunity to ridicule Apple’s Brobdingnagian smarphone rivals, calling them “Hummers”, predicting that no one will buy a phone so big “you can’t get your hand around it”.

A smaller iPad? Nah, you’d have to shave your fingertips. Quoting the Grand Master in October 2010 [emphasis mine]:

“While one could increase the resolution to make up some of the difference, it is meaningless unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size. Apple has done expensive user testing on touch interfaces over many years, and we really understand this stuff.

There are clear limits of how close you can place physical elements on a touch screen, before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them. This is one of the key reasons we think the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps.

For his part, Tim Cook has repeatedly used the “toaster-fridge” metaphor to dismiss the idea that the iPad needs a keyboard… and to diss hybrid tablet-PC devices such as Microsoft’s Surface Pro, starting with an April 2012 Earnings Call [emphasis and stitching mine]:

“You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator, but those aren’t going to be pleasing to the user. […] We are not going to that party, but others might from a defensive point of view.”

Recently, however, Apple management has adopted a more nuanced position. In a May 2013 AllThings D interview, Tim Cook cautiously danced around the iPhone screen size topic — although he didn’t waste the opportunity to throw a barb at Samsung [insert and emphasis mine]:

“We haven’t [done a bigger screen] so far, that doesn’t shut off the future. It takes a lot of really detailed work to do a phone right when you do the hardware, the software and services around it. We’ve chosen to put our energy in getting those right and have made the choices in order to do that and we haven’t become defocused working multiple lines.”

Sixteen months later, Apple’s Fall 2014 smartphone line-up sports three screen sizes: the 4” iPhone 5C and 5S , the new 4.7” iPhone 6, and the 5.5” iPhone 6 Plus phablet.

Is this apostasy? Fecklessness?

Remarking on Jobs’ quotable but not-always-lasting pronouncements, Cook gives us this:

“[Jobs] would flip on something so fast that you would forget that he was the one taking the 180 degree polar [opposite] position the day before. I saw it daily. This is a gift, because things do change, and it takes courage to change. It takes courage to say, ‘I was wrong.’ I think he had that.”

That brings us to the future of the iPad. In the same interview (in 2012) Cook expressed high hopes for Apple’s tablet:

“The tablet market is going to be huge… As the ecosystem gets better and better and we continue to double down on making great products, I think the limit here is nowhere in sight.”

Less than two years after the sky-is-the-limit pronouncement, iPad unit sales started to head South and have now plummeted for three quarters in a row (- 2,3%, – 9% and – 13% for the latest period). This isn’t to say that the iPad is losing ground to its competitors, unless you include $50 models. Microsoft just claimed $903M in Surface Pro revenue for the quarter ended last September, which, at $1K per hybrid, would be .9M units, or double that number if the company only sold its $499 year-old model. For reference, 12.3M iPads were sold in the same period (I don’t know any company, other than Apple, that discloses its tablet unit volume).

As Andreessen Horowitz’s Benedict Evans felicitously tweets it: There’re 2 tablet markets: next-gen computing vision, where Apple has 80%, and, bigger but quite separate, the cheap TV/casual games device.”

Still, the concern remains. Does the iPad own 80% of a shrinking market, or can the Cupertino team reboot sales and fulfill Tim Cook’s The Limit Is Nowhere In Sight promise?

What’s missing?

A hint might lie in plain sight at the coffee shop next door. We see laptops, a Kindle reader or two, and iPads – many with an attached keyboard. Toaster-fridges!

But here’s Craig Federighi, Apple’s Sr. VP of Software Engineering, who is fond of dismissing talk of touch-screen Macs:

“We don’t think it’s the right interface, honestly.”

I find Federighi’s remark a bit facile. Yes, touching the screen makes much more ergonomic sense for a tablet than for a laptop, but in view of the turnabouts discussed above, I don’t quite know what to make of the honestly part.

Frederigh may be entombed in the OS X and iOS software caves, but can he honestly ignore the beautiful Apple Wireless Keyboard proposed as an iPad accessory, or the many Logitech, Incase, and Belkin keyboards offered in the company’s on-line store? (Amazon ranks such keyboards between #20 and #30 in their bestsellers lists.) Is he suborning others to commit the crime of toaster-fridging?

In any case, the iPad + keyboard combo is an incomplete solution. It’s not that the device suffers from a lack of apps. Despite its poor curation, the App Store’s 675,000 iPad apps offer productivity, entertainment, education, graphic composition and editing, music creation, story-telling, and many other tools. As Father Horace (Dediu) likes to put it, the iPad can be “hired to do interesting jobs”.

No, what’s missing is that the iOS user interface building blocks are not keyboard-friendly. And when you start to list what needs to be done, such as adding a cursor, the iPad hybrid looks more and more like a Mac…but a Mac with smaller margins. The 128GB iPad plus an Apple Keyboard rings up at $131 less than a 11”, 128GB MacBook Air. (As an added benefit, perhaps the Apple toaster-fridge would come bundled with Gene Munster’s repeatedly predicted TV Set.)

On to better science fiction.

Let’s imagine what might happen next quarter when Intel finally ships the long-promised Broadwell processors. The new chips’ primary selling point is reduced power consumption. The Broadwell probably won’t dislodge ARM SoCs from smartphones, but a reduced appetite for electricity could enable a smaller, slimmer, lighter MacBook Air 2, with or without a double (linear) density Retina display.

Now consider last quarter’s iPad and Mac numbers, compared to the previous year:


Mac units grew 25% year-on-year, while iPads experienced a 7% decrease.

You’re in Apple’s driver seat: Do you try to make the iPad feel more like a Mac despite the risks on many levels (internal engineering, app developers, UI issues), or do you let nature to take its course and let the segment of more demanding users gravitate to the Mac, cannibalizing iPad sales as a result? Put another way, are you willing to risk the satisfaction of users who enjoy “pure tablet” simplicity in order to win over customers who will naturally choose a nimbler Mac?


PS: John Kirk just published a column titled The Apple Mac Takes Its Place In The Post-PC World where he digs up a prophetic Gates quote and explains the rise of the Mac as the weapon of choice for power users.


The two things that could hurt Google 

Uncategorized By October 26, 2014 Tags: , 7 Comments


Google’s recent Search Box feature is but one example of the internet giant’s propensity to use weird ideas to inflict damage upon itself. This sheds light on two serious dangers for Google: Its growing disconnection from the real world and its communication shortcomings. 

At first, the improved Google search box discreetly introduced on September 5 sounded like a terrific idea: you enter the name of a retailer — say Target, Amazon — and, within Google’s search result page, shows up another, dedicated search box in which you can search inside the retailer inventory. Weirdly enough, this new feature was not mentioned in a press release, but just in a casual Google Webmaster Central Blog post aimed at the tech in-crowd.

Evidently, it was also supposed to be a serious commercial enhancer for the search engine. Here is what it looked like as recently as yesterday:



Google wins on both ends: it keeps users on its own site (a good way to bypass the Amazon gravity well) while, in passing, cashing on ad modules purchased, in this case, both by Amazon.fr itself bidding for the keyword “perceuse” (drill) on Google.fr, and also by Amazon’s competitors offering the same appliance (and whose bids were lower.)

In due fairness, the Google Webmaster Blog explains how to bypass the second stage and how to make a search that lands directly to the site, Amazon.fr in our example. Many US e-commerce sites did so. Why Amazon didn’t is still unclear.

Needless to say, this new feature triggered outrage from many e-commerce sites, especially in Europe. (I captured these screenshots on Google.fr because no ads showed up for US retailers, most likely because I’m browsing form Paris).

For Google’s opponents, it was a welcome ammunition. Immediately, the Open Internet Project summoned a press conference (last Thursday Oct. 23), inviting journalists seen as supportive of their cause. In a previous Monday Note (see Google and the European media: Back to the Ice Age), I told the story of this advocacy group, mostly controlled by the German publishing giant Axel Springer AG, and the French media group Lagardère Active. The latter’s CEO, Denis Olivennes is well-know for his deft political maneuvers, much less so for his business acumen as he missed scores of digital trains in his long career in retail (he headed French retailer Fnac), and in the media business.

Realizing its mistake, Google quickly pulled back, removing the search box on several retailers’ sites, and announcing (though unofficially) that it was working on an opt-out system.

This incident is the perfect illustration of two major Google liabilities.

One: Google’s disconnect from the outside world keeps growing. More than ever, it looks like an insulated community, nurturing its own vision of the digital world, with less and less concern for its users who also happen to be its customers. It looks like Google lives in its own space-time (which is not completely a figure of speech since the company maintains its own set of atomic clocks to synchronize its data centers across the world independently from official time sources).

You can actually feel it when hanging around its vast campus, where large luxury buses coming from San Francisco pour out scores of young people, mostly male (70%) mostly white (61%), produced by the same set of top universities (in that order:  Stanford, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, MIT, UCLA…). They are pampered in the best possible way, with free food, on location dental care, etc. They see the world through the mirrored glass of their office, their computer screen and the reams of data that constitute their daily reality.

Google is a brainy but also messy company where the left hemisphere ignores what the other one does. Since the right one (the engineers) is particularly creative and productive, the left brain suffers a lot. In this recent case, a group of techies working at the huge search division (several thousands people) came up with this idea of an improved search box. Higher up, near the top, someone green-lighted the idea that went live early September. Many people from the left hemisphere — communication, legal, public affairs — might have been kept in the dark, not even willfully, by the engineering team, but simply by natural cockiness (or naiveté). However, I also suspect the business side of the company was in the loop (“Google” and “candor” make a solid oxymoron).

Two: Google has a chronic communication problem. The digital ecosystem is known for quickly testing and learning (as opposed to legacy media that are more into staying and sinking). In practical terms, they fire first and reflect afterwards. And sometimes retract. In the search box incident, the right attitude would have been to put up a communiqué saying basically, “Our genuine priority was to improve the user experience [the mandatory BS], but we found out that many e-retailers strongly disliked this new feature. As a result, we took the following steps, blablabla.” Instead, Google did nothing of the sort, only getting its engineering staff to quietly remove the offending search box.

There is a pattern to Google’s inability to properly communicate. You almost discover by accident that these people are doing stunning things in many fields. When the company is questioned, it almost never responds by providing solid data to make its point — that’s simply unbelievable from a company that is so obsessed with its reliance to hard facts. Recall Google’s internal adoption of W. Edwards Deming’s motto: In god we trust, all others bring data.

In parallel, the company practices access journalism, picking up the writer of its choosing, giving him/er a heads-up for a specific subject hoping for a good story. Here are two examples from Wired and The Atlantic.



These long-read “exclusive” and timely features were reported respectively on location from New Zealand and Australia. They are actually great and balanced pieces since both Wired’s Steven Levy and Atlantic’s Alex Madrigal are fine journalists.

While it never miss a opportunity to mention its vulnerability, Google is better than anyone else at nurturing it. Like Mikhail Gorbachev used to say about the crumbling USSR: “The steering is not connected to the wheels”. We all know what happened.



How Facebook and Google Now Dominate Media Distribution

business models, social networks By October 19, 2014 Tags: , , , , , 13 Comments


The news media sector has become heavily dependent on traffic from Facebook and Google. A reliance now dangerously close to addiction. Maybe it’s time to refocus on direct access. 

Digital publishers pride themselves on their ability to funnel traffic from search and social, namely Google and Facebook (we’ll see that Twitter, contrary to its large public image, is in fact a minuscule traffic source.) In ly business, we hunt for the best Search Engine Optimization specialists, social strategists, community managers to expand the reach of our precious journalistic material; we train and retrain newsroom staff; we equip them with the best tools for analytics and A/B testing to see what headlines best fit the web’s volatile mood… And yet, when a competing story gets a better Google News score, the digital marketing staff gets a stern remark from the news floor. We also compare ourselves with the super giants of the internet whose traffic numbers coming from social reach double digit percentages. In short, we do our best to tap into the social and search reservoir of readers.


Illustration by Rafiq ElMansy DeviantArt

Consequences vary. Many great news brands today see their direct traffic — that is readers accessing deliberately the URL of the site — fall well below 50%. And the younger the media company (pure players, high-performing click machines such as BuzzFeed), the lower the proportion of direct access is – to the benefit of Facebook and Google for the most part. (As I write this, another window on my screen shows the internal report of a pure player news site: In August it only collected 11% in direct access, vs. 19% from Google and 24% from Facebook — and I’m told it wants to beef up it’s Facebook pipeline.)

Fact is, the two internet giants now control most of the news traffic. Even better, they collect on both ends of the system.

Consider BuzzFeed. In this story from Marketing Land, BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti claims to get 75% of its traffic from social and to not paying much attention to Google anymore. According to last Summer ComScore data, a typical BuzzFeed viewer reads on average 2.3 articles and spends slightly more than 3 minutes per visit. And when she leaves BuzzFeed, she goes back to the social nest (or to Google-controlled sites) roughly in the same proportion. As for direct access, it amounts to only 6% and Twitter’s traffic is almost no existent (less than 1%). It clearly appears that Twitter’s position as a significant traffic contributor is vastly overstated: In real terms, it’s a tiny dot in the readers’ pool. None of this is accidental. BF has built a tremendous social/traffic machine that is at the core of its business.

Whether it is 75% of traffic coming from social for BuzzFeed or 30% to 40% for Mashable or others of the same kind, the growing reliance to social and search raises several questions.

The first concerns the intrinsic valuation of a media so dependent on a single distribution provider. After all, Google has a proven record of altering its search algorithm without warning. (In due fairness, most modifications are aimed at content farms and others who try to game Google’s search mechanism.) As for Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is unpredictable, he’s also known to do what he wants with his company, thanks to an absolute control on its Board of Directors (read this Quartz story).

None of the above is especially encouraging. Which company in the world wouldn’t be seen as fragile when depending so much on a small set of uncontrollable distributors?

The second question lies in the value of the incoming traffic. Roughly speaking, for a news, value-added type media, the number of page views by source goes like this:
Direct Access : 5 to 6 page views
Google Search: 2 to 3
Emailing: ~2
Google News: ~1
Social: ~1
These figures show how good you have to be in collecting readers from social sources to generate the same advertising ARPU as from a loyal reader coming to your brand because she likes it. Actually, you have to be at least six times better. And the situation is much, much worse if your business model relies a lot on subscriptions (for which social doesn’t bring much transformation when compared, for instance, to highly targeted emails.)

To be sure, I do not advocate we should altogether dump social media or search. Both are essential to attract new readers and expand a news brand’s footprint, to build the personal brand of writers and contributors. But when it comes to the true value of a visit, it’s a completely different story. And if we consider that the value of a single reader must be spread over several types of products and services (see my previous column Diversify or Die) then, the direct reader’s value becomes even more critical.

Taken to the extreme, some medias are doing quite well by relying solely on direct access. Netflix, for instance, entirely built its audience through its unique recommendation engine. Its size and scope are staggering. No less than 300 people are assigned to analyze, understand, and serve the preferences of the network’s 50 million subscribers (read Alex Madrigal’s excellent piece published in January in The Atlantic). Netflix’s data chief Neil Hunt, in this keynote of RecSys conference (go to time code 55:30), sums up his ambition by saying his challenge is “to create 50 million different channels“. In order to do so, he manages a €150m a year data unit. Hunt and his team concentrate their efforts on optimizing the 150 million choices Netflix offers every day to its viewers. He said that if only 10% of those choices end up better than they might have been without its recommendation system, and if just 1% of those choices are good enough to prevent the cancellation of a subscription, such efforts are worth €500m a year for the company (out of a $4.3bn revenue and a $228m operating income in 2013). While Netflix operates in a totally different area from news, such achievement is worth meditating upon.

Maybe it’s time to inject “direct” focus into the obligatory social obsession.



Brace For The Corporate Journalism Wave

advertising, business models, journalism By September 21, 2014 Tags: , , , 16 Comments


 [Updated with fresh data]

Corporations are tempted to take over journalism with increasingly better contents. For the profession, this carries both dangers and hopes for new revenue streams. 

Those who fear Native Advertising or Branded Content will dread the unavoidable rise of Corporate Journalism. At first glance, associating the two words sounds like of an oxymoron of the worst possible taste, an offense punishable by tarring and feathering. But, as I will now explain, the idea deserves a careful look.

First, consider the chart below, lifted form an Economist article titled Slime-slinging Flacks vastly outnumber hacks these days. Caveat lector, published in 2011. The numbers are a bit old (I tried to update them without success), but the trend was obvious and is likely to have continued:


As several readers pointed out, I failed to mention a Pew Research story by Alex T. Williams that contains recent data that further confirm the trend: (emphasis mine)

There were 4.6 public relations specialists for every reporter in 2013, according to the [Bureau of Labor Statistics] data. That is down slightly from the 5.3 to 1 ratio in 2009 but is considerably higher than the 3.2 to 1 margin that existed a decade ago, in 2004.

[Over the last 10 years], the number of reporters decreased from 52,550 to 43,630, a 17% loss according to the BLS data. In contrast, the number of public relations specialists during this timeframe grew by 22%, from 166,210 to 202,530.

 Williams also exposes the salary gap between PR people and news reporters:

In 2013, according to BLS data, public relations specialists earned a median annual income of $54,940 compared with $35,600 for reporters.

And I should also mention this excellent piece in this Weekend FT, on The invasion of Corporate News. —

In short, while the journalistic staffing is shrinking dramatically in every mature market (US, Europe), the public relation crowd is rising in a spectacular fashion. It grows in two dimensions: the spinning aspect, with more highly capable people, most often former seasoned writers willing to become spin-surgeons. These are both disappointed by the evolution of their noble trade and attracted by higher compensation. The second dimension is the growing inclination for PR firms, communication agencies and corporations themselves to build fully-staffed newsrooms with editor-in-chief, writers, photo and video editors.

That’s the first issue.

The second trend is the evolution of corporate communication. Slowly but steadily, it departs from the traditional advertising codes that ruled the profession for decades. It shifts toward a more subtle and mature approach based on storytelling. Like it or not, that’s exactly what branded content is about: telling great stories about a company in a more intelligent way versus simply extolling a product’s merits.

I’m not saying that one will disappear at the other’s expense. Communication agencies will continue to plan, conceive and produce scores of plain, product-oriented campaigns. This is first because brands need it, but also because there are often no other ways to promote a product than showing it in the most effective (and sometimes aesthetic) fashion. But fact is, whether it is to stage the manufacturing process of a luxury watch, or the engineering behind a new medical imagery device, more and more companies are getting into a full-blown storytelling. To do so, they (or their surrogates) are hiring talent — which happens to be in rather large supply these days.

The rise of digital media is no stranger to this trend. In the print era, for practical reasons, it would have been inconceivable to intertwine classic journalism with editorial treatments. In the digital world things are completely different. Endless space, the ability to link, insert expandable formats all open new possibilities when it comes to accommodating large, rich, multimedia contents.

This evolution carries both serious hazards for traditional journalism as well as tangible economic opportunities. Let’s start with the business side.

Branded content (or native advertising) has achieved significant traction in the modern media business — even if the quality of its implementation varies widely. Some companies (that I will refrain from naming) screwed up big time by failing to properly identify what was paid-content as opposed to genuine journalistic production. And a misled reader is a lost reader (especially if there is a pattern). But for those who pull out good execution, both in terms of ethics and products, native ads carry a much better value than banners, billboards, pushdowns, interstitials, or other pathetic “creations” massively rejected by readers. I know of several media selling dumb IAB formats that find out they can achieve rates 5x to 8x higher by relying on high quality, bespoke branded contents. These more parsimonious and non invasive products achieve a much better audience acceptance than traditional formats.

For media companies, going decisively for branded content is also a way to regain control on their own business. Instead of getting avalanches of ready-to-eat campaigns from media buying agencies, they retain more control on the creation of advertising elements by dealing with the creative agencies or even with the brand themselves. Such a move goes with some constraints, though. Entering branded content at a credible scale requires investments. To serve its advertising clients, BuzzFeed maintains 50 people in its own design studio. Relative to the size of their entire staff, many other new media companies decided from the outset to build fairly large creative teams (including Quartz). That’s precisely why I believe most legacy media will miss this train (again). Focused on short-term cost control, also under pressure from conservative newsrooms who see branded content as the Antichrist, they will delay the move. In the meantime, pure players will jump on the opportunity.

Newsrooms have reasons to fear Corporate Journalism — in the sense of the ultimate form of branded content entirely packaged by the advertiser — but not for the reasons editors usually put forward. Dealing with the visual segregation of native ads vs. editorial is not utterly complicated; it depends mostly on the mutual understanding between the head of sales (or the publisher) and the editor; the latter needs to be credible enough among his peers to impose his/er choices without yielding to corporatism-induced demagoguery.

But the juxtaposition of articles (or multimedia contents) produced on one side by the newsroom and on another hand by a sponsor willing to build its storytelling at any cost might trigger another kind of conflict, around means and sources.

In the end, journalism is all about access. Beat reporters from a news media will do their best to circumvent the PR fence to get access to sources, while at the same time the PR team will order a bespoke story from its own staff writers. Both teams might actually find themselves in competition. Let’s say a media wants to write a piece on the strategy shift of major energy conglomerate with respect to global warming; the news team will talk to scores of specialists outside the company, financial analysts who challenge management’s choices, shareholders who object to expensive diversification, advocacy group who monitor operations in sensitive areas, unions, etc. They will also try to gain access to those who decide the fate of the company, i.e. top management, strategic committees, etc. Needless to say, such access will be tightly controlled.

On the corporate journalism side, the story will be told differently: strategist and managers will talk openly and in a very interesting way (remember, they are interviewed by pros). At the same time, a well-crafted on-site video shot in an oil-field in Borneo, or on a solar farm in Africa will reinforce the message, in a 60 Minutes way. The whole package won’t carry silly corporate messages, it will be rich, carefully balanced for credibility and well-staged. Click-wise, it is also likely to be quite attractive with its glowing, sleek videos and great text that will have the breadth (but not the substance) of professional reporting.

I’m painting this in broad strokes. But you get my point: Authentic news reporting and corporate journalism are bound to compete as audience could increasingly enjoy informative, well-design corporate production over drier journalistic work — even though it is labelled as such. Of course, corporate journalism will remain small compared to the editorial content produced by a newsroom, but it could be quite effective on the long run.