How to label "native ads" in a non-confusing way

If almost all media, including magazines, will soon be using "native advertising" (and it seems it will), it might be good to know how best to identify such ads for readers. A post on Digiday reports on some research by the native ad tech company TripleLift exploring typical terms or disclosure labels used and how readers and marketers react to them.

Using eye-tracking, the study shows respondents who most (%) saw ads with a "presented by" or "sponsored by" label and the fewest, who saw ads with the heading "advertisement". 

It's understandable why advertisers and marketers prefer the softer, more evasive labels since people may tend to avoid or skip over obvious ads. Yet the research shows that the exact opposite is the case when asked which label makes it most clear that the content is an ad.

Yet, when the [U.S.] Association of National Advertisers asked its members (63% of whom said they expected to increase spending on native this year) which terms describe native ad disclosure "very well", they answered:

Go figure. 

CJF hosting October 2 panel about native advertising

L to R, Borra, Bradbury, White and Shapiro

I make no secret of my skepticism about so-called "native advertising", which to me is simply advertorials of old, glossed with new language. But I'd be interested in a panel being offered by The Canadian Journalism Foundation called "Native Advertising: Journalism's Saviour or Sellout?" 

It's to be held in Toronto on Thursday, October 2 from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the TMX Broadcast Centre - Gallery, The Exchange Tower, 130 King St. W., Toronto.

($15 for students, $25 for early bird, $30 general admission.)

Panelists will be Jill Borra, executive editor at The Globe and Mail; Cathrin Bradbury, executive director of content development at Star Media Group (recently named editor-in-chief of Metro); and Scott White, vice-president of content strategy and business development at Postmedia Network, for this discussion. Ivor Shapiro, chair of the School of Journalism and associate professor specializing in journalism ethics at Ryerson University, moderates. The setup for the session says

Native advertising. Branded content. Custom content. Whatever it’s called, these ‘advertorials’ are controversial, yet news organizations see them as the latest and best business strategy. Can Journalism’s tattered integrity be rescued when the lines between editorial and advertising content are blurred? Can sponsored content be palatable to readers, and to journalists? And while these ads are delivering new dollars to legacy news outlets, are they also eroding trust and driving readers away?

Good questions, all.  

Study suggests consumers are wary of "native advertising"

A new study about to be released by Nielsen on behalf of tech startup company InPowered suggests that readers are wary of so-called "native advertising". A report in Ad Age, written by Steve Rubel, chief content strategist for public relations firm Edelman, says that 60% of readers in the U.S. lab study were less likely to trust a product review if they knew it was paid for by the company selling the product. And half of the study participants didn't trust a brand's own website for reliable product information. 

This may cause questioning about sponsored content being somehow almost as trusted as journalism. It also may counter a belief among marketers that they can simply go direct, becoming their own publishers.

The study found that consumers are quite sophisticated in seeking out what the research called "trusted content" -- 3rd-party articles by journalists. 85% seek this out and 67% say such information informs their buying decisions.

"[The data] raises serious questions over whether native advertising threatens to upend this trust publishers have earned with their audience. This is a particularly prickly issue as it could become harder for readers to discern ads from editorial."

Whether "native advertising" will kill journalism worries the inventor of the banner ad

The New York Times's David Carr has written a thought-provoking column about the perils of "native advertising", a column centred around an interview with Joe McCambley, the founder of the digital design firm Wonderfactory. 

"When the guy who ruined the Internet with banner ads tells you that a new kind of advertising might destroy journalism, it tends to get your attention," [says Carr.]

McCambley thinks native advertising may damage the longstanding contract between consumer and media organizations (what we used to call readers and publishers). Ads mimicking the style and format of journalism and nestled among real stories; sometimes labelled, more often not, gain attention and engagement. (They're what we used to call "advertorial" but even more closely integrated with content.) 

“I completely understand the value of native advertising but there are a number of publishers who are allowing P.R. firms and advertising agencies direct access to their content management systems and allowing them to publish directly to the site. I think that is a huge mistake. 

“It is a very slippery slope and could kill journalism if publishers aren’t careful....

“You are gambling with the contract you have with your readers. How do I know who made the content I am looking at and what the value of the information is?”

The hustling of "native advertising"; new Hearst digital chief says it's a "natural evolution"

Occasionally, I find myself saying "what the heck does that mean?" and one of those times just occurred when reading an interview in Ad Age with Troy Young, the president at Hearst Magazines Digital Media* saying this about so-called 'native advertising':

There's a lot to come on the native side, and I'm glad the market is rallying around the idea, but really it's a natural evolution of doing a couple of things: Making the advertising fit more elegantly in the content experience, and making it more interesting and removing the friction from consuming it, which was always the problem with legacy advertising experience.

Now it's about putting something back in for the user. Give them value or you're dead. It's a natural evolution. I think it's all good and every publishing company is going to have to deal with it.

Native advertising is apparently seen as a natural evolution of a thing rather than the mere application of a rebranding gloss to something that has long been with us; advertorial, or advertising that masquerades as editorial content. Apparently, too, there was perceived to be a friction present when reading advertising in traditional formats (say, in the pages of a Hearst magazine), now to be lubricated away by making advertising more interesting and integrating it more seamlessly with editorial content. This new, elegant and apparently, better kind of advertising (also contains lanolin) will give readers more value, by the mere act of making ads look more like editorial.

[*Another thing I found out when reading the interview was the Young got his start  in the '90s at Montreal Mirror.] 

The future of "contextualized commerce" in magazines

The president of Dwell Media and publisher of Dwell magazine, Michela O'Connor, enthuses about the joys of "contextualized commerce", which means that the recent special "fully shoppable" online issue of the magazine will likely become the norm.

Over the past two years, Dwell has experimented with different e-commerce models through partnerships with OpenSky and Gilt. Those initiatives have come and gone as Dwell searched for a deeper, more integrated shopping experience for its audience.

“Flash sales were fine when they first came on the scene, but that model is fatiguing,” O'Connor Abrams said in a phone interview. “We’ve been looking at the best way to utilize our content in the commerce world, and our firm belief is that contextualized commerce is the future.”

There has been a rush of enthusiasm recently for what is called the "integration" of ads and editorial -- but, of course, without compromising editorial integrity [wink] -- using terms such as "native advertising" (what we used to call "advertorial") and, now, "contextualized commerce" (what we used to call a catalogue).

Dwell was launched in September 2000 and has a total circulation of 331,000.