The first magazine job I got in 1996 was a real shocker. I quickly learned that content was diluted and often dictated by the advertisers. The appeasing of advertisers wasn’t a shock. The extent to which it happened was.

For years editorial and advertising relationships have been hidden, shunned and disputed. But they are there. The issue is in how those relationships are presented. Branded content is prevalent on the internet, but for some reason many still hold print in a higher regard when it comes to professional journalism. But now that branded content has been happening on the print front it’s causing quite a stir. ESPN magazine got their throats jumped down earlier this year just as Vogue did many years ago. But it’s all changing.

This month’s Transworld Snowboarding cover has caused one heck of a stir. Mike Berard’s site has a post on it (and you can see the cover in question there), where a discussion has begun (to which I left a comment). I will say this: I am not opposed to branded content. I’m opposed to advertiser directed journalism. I think at this point we’re at a societal point where these things aren’t going to exist unless they are branded. How much of that gets brand driven? Colors Magazine, funded by Benetton, was one of the most culturally aware publications ever produced. But few brands would agree to such subtle involvement. We are a “make the logo bigger” society.

My question in the whole mess regards photographers and writers. When they produce advertising content they are compensated very differently then with editorial because they are selling a product. While a Transworld cover may only pay several hundred dollars, an advertisement for a non-endemic brand can pay in excess of $10,000. Photographers make very little money off of editorial and writers are in the same boat. They depend on licensing for advertising. Without that licensing the photographer’s career is going to be a thing of the past. The question is, if your photo appears on the cover of a magazine with a logo super-imposed, is it editorial, or is it advertising? To me, in my opinion, it is advertising. The licensing fee should reflect that. Is the athlete compensated for their involvement in this advertisement? They’d better be. You can read more on Mike’s blog and chime in.

Edit Note: The biggest, and most important question I see (and one that no one seems to be asking) is this — If brand X can pay to insert its logo on any photo in a magazine, in the case of TWS a cover shot, what incentive do they have to sponsor athletes?

Maybe I’ll start adding the above “Consume” watermark to all my images that get used in print? Would that be a problem?