MSFW Industry day Part 1: The Debate - Earned Media vs. Paid Media

Melbourne Spring Fashion Week's industry day proved that fashion is not just about clothes. It proved that social media, marketing, innovative retail are the values which determine the sustainability of the fashion industry.

I was fortunate enough to be granted a full day pass in which I attended the Plenary and the Debate, and during lunch I was able to catch up with my favourite Melbourne fashion blogger and also one of my favourite people, Hung from Antwerp Sex.

In this first post, I will focus on the debate and my second post will be on the Plenary.

The topic of debate was effectively that earned media is more bang for your buck than paid media.
On the affirmative team, arguing for earned media was

1. Phoebe Montague, editor of Melbourne based fashion blog Lady Melbourne (Team Captain)
2. Janice Breen Burns, editor of Voxfrock.com.au
3. Anton Staindl, managing director of Haystac

The negative team, arguing for paid media included

1. Sarah Stringer from Carat (Team Captain)
2. Lisa Messenger, editor in chief of Renegade Collective
3. Rene L'Estrange-Nickson, director of Advertising at Broadsheet

So what is earned media and what is paid media?

The affirmative team defined earned media as publicity gained through editorial work and emphasised that earned media is much more subtle that paid media. In addition that earned media is about providing the best experience and generating confidence in consumers. The negative team, arguing for paid media, defined it as publicity gained through paid recommendation such as advertising and PR agencies which would inevitably increase profits and result in a return in investment.

Earned Media

The first speaker for the affirmative team, Phoebe Montague, presented the argument that publicity and media cannot be bought and it must be organic in order for media to manifest itself in a way which would be most beneficial to the client. She discussed the example of Tavi's infamous hat incident at Dior Couture in 2010 when a reporter from Grazia tweeted a photo of Tavi's hat blocking her view, with the caption "At Dior. Not pleased to be watching couture through 13 year old Tavi's hat." This tweet was re-tweeted over 10.3 million times and no doubt gained publicity for not only Tavi Gevison, but Dior, Stephen Jones (the designer of her hat) and Grazia (although it may not have been good publicity, it's still publicity). The cost to Dior, Tavi, Stephen Jones and Grazia was nothing. This example is truly one in which organic, earned media, triumphed, however there is no way of knowing if paid media was to advertise this incident what would've happened. Could it also have generated just as much publicity?

The second speaker for the affirmative team, Janice Breen Burns from Voxfrock.com.au, presented an entertaining speech in which she made reference to the "bend over the desk" job. She discussed the balancing act which was the relationship between the consumer and provider highlighting that there must be a mutual trust between the two. Burns discussed the cynicism surrounding media these days and most of all paid media, using the example of advertising vs journalism. Both of these are forms of paid media, which blurs the lines between the two. As journalism stands today, it insinuates that the journalist must be only reporting on the issue or topic at hand, that is, remaining impartial and showing absolutely no bias between the two, yet presenting both or all sides of the argument, however we know that this is not always true as humans are prejudiced and do bear preconceived notions, and so is journalism truly journalism or is it just simply another form of advertisement?

This led me to think of fashion journalism and in particular the profoundly childish and unprofessional blow up between Cathy Horyn and Hedi Slimane of Saint Laurent (I will never get used to calling Yves Saint Laurent that). This issue not only highlighted the fact that most journalists now to be blunt, suck up to designers to attain highly coveted front row seats in the fashion world - fashion journalism is one which is truly dead. This issue was also demonstrated in Colin McDowell's article for the Business of Fashion, in which he examined the "sorry state of fashion journalism and why fashion need its fourth estate (fashion journalism) more than ever before." These are just two of the many examples this year in which the so-called fashion journalists have used their staked their reputations against the advertorial nature of paid fashion media.

Burns concluded her argument with a bold statement that "cynicism is a virus" in the case of paid media and this in turn devalues the integrity of both the consumer and source of media.

The third and final speaker for the affirmative team was Anton Staindl, the managing director of Haystac and he persuaded that paid media struggles to provide a subtle influential experience on the consumer. He demonstrated with the help of a photo of Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke's infamous performance at the VMAs this year and Spanx - who apparently "let others do the talking for them" - letting their consumers and clients gain confidence in their brand and product through their reputation. He once again re-iterated the point that in order for media to work, there must be an organic, trusting relationship between consumer and supplier, that one must have confidence in both their product through organic, earned media rather than paid media.

Paid Media

Sarah Stringer from the Carat group, the first speaker for the negative team, was someone who I was seriously impressed with. It was obvious from the very start that Sarah had been in the business of media for a long time and knew how to use media to her advantage and integrate all channels of media. She acknowledged the fact that while PR agencies are effectively providing earned media, the way in which they deliver that media is through bought media. Stringer delivered the argument that through paid media, it can create a brand on a larger scale and reach a much bigger demographic through strategically studying consumer habits and enlisting a variety of communications.

The second speaker for the negative team, Lisa Messenger, delivered a hilariously unprepared speech yet with complete confidence and coherence. Through her magazine, Renegade Collective, Messenger talked about the economical side of paid media and the continuous cycle in which it contributes and sustains the various forms of media. She informed us that printing her magazine costs around $200,000 alone per issue and without paid media such as advertising, her magazine would simply be unsustainable and cease to exist. She applied this analogy to Television, Newspaper and Radio, that paid media is absolutely imperative to ensure the sustainability of these different channels of media communication.

It was interesting that she had bought up this issue because during the time between the Debate and the Plenary, I picked up a copy of Vogue US' infamous September Issue which I'm pretty sure is made up of 80% advertisements and 20% actual editorial work. Perhaps, Vogue in the same way is using the sensationalism surrounding the September Issue to fund it's other issues and side projects. I'll also be writing a blogpost about the September Issue soon, so watch out for that!

Finally, the negative team concluded with director of Advertising at Broadsheet, Rene L'Estrange-Nickson. Nickson re-iterated Messenger's argument about the economical sustainability of media through paid media and discussed the issue of paid media within the context of the fashion industry. He argued that in fashion, the goal, is to make a profit, which obviously is true as fashion is an industry. He steered the conversation again to PR however, presenting a unique perspective on the relationship between PR and paid media, stating that advertisement can generate good publicity and therefore PR. Furthermore, through paid media, it would in term generate earned media.

Nickson also introduced the argument that a proportion of Phoebe Montague's blog Lady Melbourne is actually generated through paid media, as she features a rate card on which clients are able to sponsor content to be featured on her blog. Although, the sponsored content is extremely transparent as Montague disclaims these to her readers and she stated that it is ultimately up to her audience whether or not they want to read the content which she is sponsored for.

I strongly believe that paid media and earned media go hand in hand, as paid media is guaranteed to be positive and promote as there is a compensation provided, earned media is more honest and in my opinion, generates much more credibility however may not reach a bigger demographic as Sarah Stringer stated. In our society, advertising holds an important place, telling us where to go, what to buy, what to eat and governing all our decisions in one way or another. However the issue stands that advertising is not always credible - in fact it's credibility is questionable as paid media will only address one side of the argument, the most positive side and most profitable side, whether this is lying or deceiving the consumer is up to the consumer to decide whether or not to buy into the product or service.



I would just like to state that although I was granted media accreditation to MSFW, I am in no way receiving any sort of compensation for my MSFW posts and that if I were to ever feature sponsored content on my blog, I would of course disclaim that to all of my readers.

Images are courtesy of Hobo photgraphy