Marketing v. Journalism: There is a BIG Difference
In the past several years, I’ve noticed that perceptions of marketing and journalism are increasingly blurred. Universities often house their marketing and advertising programs in their journalism schools; journalists often apply for (and get) marketing jobs and vice-versa; the rise of so-called content marketing has blurred the lines even more. (Content marketing, in essence, means providing useful information through narrative stories.) And marketing departments increasingly are forced to comply with AP Style—the rules of style for journalism.
First, let’s look at the definitions of the two (as supplied by Google):
Marketing: the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.
Journalism: the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television.
These definitions are a good start—promoting and selling products and services versus writing for news. But the differences go far deeper.
Perhaps the single greatest difference between marketing and journalism is that marketing is an inherently creative, psychological art.
Marketing is not about truth and fact, and never has been. At its best, marketing is about distilling the essential benefits of something into brief, memorable words, phrases, and images that evoke strong emotions to slip into the minds of an audience—and stay there.
Journalism—at least in its original form—is about truth, facts, and storytelling.
Back to the blurred line between the two: for better or worse, journalism has increasingly taken on characteristics of marketing. It’s become more about entertainment and ratings than truth and fact. And this hasn’t gone unnoticed by traditional journalists, who lament the gradual erosion of truth and fact—particularly the unbiased kind.
Similarly, marketing has taken on more aspects of journalism—most obvious in the rise of content marketing, which requires marketing people to become publishers of long-form content. The idea is that long-form content makes a recognized expert of a business or organization—which in turn leads to more sales. (Hopefully.)
Even that 20th-century icon of marketing, David Ogilvy, presaged the merging of the two when he said,
There is no need for advertisements to look like advertisements. If you make them look like editorial pages, you will attract about 50 per cent more readers.
Ogilvy also said,
On the average, five times as many people read the headline as read the body copy. When you have written your headline, you have spent eighty cents out of your dollar.
These two quotes may seem contradictory, and they are. Ogilvy is basically saying that a short, creative headline does 80% of the selling (marketing), and that an ad that looks like an editorial will attract more viewers (journalism).
I suppose this blurring of the line between marketing and journalism may not be a bad thing in itself. But while we’re moving closer to a hybrid of the two (Journeting? Marketism?), the inevitable result is not that both become stronger, but that each becomes weaker.
With 25 years in the marketing industry, I believe the difference between people who are good at marketing and good at journalism is greater than either specialization.
Good marketing people are artists, plain and simple. They are right-brained people with a lot of creativity and (this is critical) a tendency for abstract thought. Their stock in trade is emotion more than fact, and they understand that marketing is inherently a psychological endeavor.
Good journalists can also be creative, but they tend to be more orderly thinkers—more left-brained. (Because clear writing is a result of clear thinking.)
Based in storytelling, journalism is fundamentally chronological—a linear exercise in describing cause and effect. Marketing is fundamentally associative and random—all about eliciting emotions and creating unforgettable phrases and images.
There are very few people in the world who are great at both.
As an aside, marketing programs in universities are often housed in business schools. I could argue they should actually be part of the art and design school—not business.
It’s my hunch that this merging of marketing and journalism is really more a case of journalism swallowing marketing. While journalism majors often get marketing jobs, the reverse is rarely the case. There is a certain self-perception among journalists that theirs is a sacred trade, requiring enormous skill and highly specialized education…whereas marketers are often perceived as tacky loudmouths. (Okay, I admit that sounds biased, but it’s based on years of observation—and I like journalism! Many of my best friends are journalists.)
This subsuming of marketing by journalism parallels the general decline of the arts—the perception that art may be fun, but ultimately frivolous—and certainly not something you base a career on. Journalism is considered “serious.”
I see the effects of this every day, on the ground, when I see people trained as journalists fail to produce good marketing. Because good marketing requires the kind of imagination to create messages, memories, and emotions that rise above the noise—and I’ve almost never seen a journalist achieve this while in a marketing position.
Universities haven’t helped, either, because teaching something requires an orderly, linear approach. Not the chaos of real creativity. If someone great at marketing applied for a teaching job at a university, they wouldn’t make the first cut because they haven’t written scholarly papers on the subject (nor earned a PhD in marketing).
Perhaps things will change. But likely not for a long time. Meanwhile, it’s my hope a few people will read this and have a better understanding of how marketing and journalism are different—and why the world needs people who are good at each.
