Big Opinion, Big Budget

Apologies to the anti-corporate folks, but: CEOs are allowed to have opinions, and their opinions have value. Often, as people who build value for lots of other people, they have more proportionate value than other people. (Though, admittedly in many cases, way too much.) Let me say that right at the leap.

But they also have resources, and those resources can shape the opinion being shared in sometimes questionable ways. The role of a media outlet sharing a CEO’s opinion is to act as a filter—to not let the opinion overwhelm reality or exploit the audience.

The New York Times, this week, published an op-ed from a CEO on a topic that he has a financial stake in. That’s nothing new for the NYT. The difference was, the opinion was presented as a video. And that video was by something of a master of the form—Jack Conte, the CEO of Patreon. (Sharing my NYT linking policy.) Conte is a deeply creative figure and his videos would be worth watching even without the added thrust of the New York Times. If this had been a YouTube video on his own channel rather than an op-ed on the NYT website, nobody would bat an eye.

But at least for me, the video raises serious questions. Part of the reason it raises questions is that it obviously has a giant budget against it, full of custom physical props, digital effects, and inventive camera work. From a visual engagement perspective, it is better than most of the NYT’s own videos. It is not the kind of thing an average person can do, and it looks high-budget even for a video produced for The New York Times.

The result is something that is uniquely Conte. I actually agree with the sentiment—that algorithms should serve art, not engagement. But it also feels like sponsored content in spirit, if perhaps not in money exchanged.

The truth is, if we live in a world where more op-eds appear in video form, naturally some people are going to have the resources to make better video op-eds than others. CEOs can put thousands of dollars, even more, against the work. (And given the list of creatives that worked on the video, many of the clip’s creatives work for, or have existing relationships with, Patreon.)

Anyone can write a paragraph, and that person’s word will have equal weight because of the format and the profile. (That said—let’s admit it, most of us need editors, present company included.) But when that word is translated to video, it threatens to change its perception sharply.

Patreon has a good reputation, and has largely done right by creators. But the standard I see for this is pretty simple. If you were to ask another company with a less-than-stellar reputation to do this, and they spent tens of thousands of dollars on a video, would the optics feel the same? Let’s say we let the CEO of BP do a video op-ed—or someone who bankrolled a redistricting effort at risk of getting squashed by a state-wide vote. At what point does a video produced with the creator’s own resources become advertising under another name?

This is where the NYT‘s role as a filter is supposed to kick in, to question whether this goes too far or blurs the lines too much. This is not to rein in Conte’s clear excitement over his point of view, but to point out the reality that the polish reflects his economic incentive.

You’re more likely to polish a stone to look shiny and beautiful if you can make money from it.