Nowadays, anyone can easily create a website to disseminate information in minutes. With social media, the process is even quicker.

This is great because the process is democratized. However, some organizations blatantly conflate “editorial” and “content creation.” For those willing to listen, this article should clarify the difference.

Make no mistake, there are talented people (and varying roles) on both the editorial and content creation sides of the watch industry. The roles don’t matter much, but which side you’re on does.

It’s not a matter of talent. It’s a matter of intent. You’re either producing editorial or creating content — those terms should not be conflated.

Additionally, if you label an article or video as a “Watch Review” — it universally means you have photographed or filmed the watch yourself. Whether the imagery is shot on professional cameras or consumer smartphones is irrelevant. If the brand provided the imagery, it’s not a review.

Most importantly, watch reviews always come from a party that’s not directly selling the watch, and who is not given commercial (brand-safe) instructions on how to write the review. The moment the intent of your words is to sell watches for the same company that employs you — you become a content creator, a copywriter, a seller.

The demarcation between editorial and content creation is critical, even if your words would be identical in either form, because intent is the determining factor.

For those intentionally conflating the terms — which is detrimental to consumers — please stick to high-volume, low-value content creation and leave actual, thoughtful editorial to those who know the difference between the two.

 

Photo of Editor-in-Chief, Michael Thompson of International Watch Magazine, during a tour of Roger Dubuis, with Professional Watches and Robb Report, in 2010.