Global IAA boss: no one cares about church and state when it comes to native advertising
The global boss of the International Advertising Association (IAA) has dismissed concerns that native advertising is eroding consumer trust in the media saying they are not concerned about the separation of sales and editorial, often referred to as church and state.
IAA managing director Michael Lee told Mumbrella the ongoing global concern about native advertising, typically described as advertising that appears in the news feed of publications and looks similar to the editorial offering, was overstated.
“I don’t think that anyone really cares,” Lee said. “Church and state might just be a hangover from the old days but I don’t think the average consumer really cares.” Citing the global growth of native advertising, which is expected to hit $4.3b globally in 2015, Lee argued it was here to stay “and increasingly saving the bacon of a lot of legacy media companies”.
“The church and state scenario is not as intensive as it used to be and I think that those who are doing it well are doing it really well.”
Challenged on the issue of whether blurred lines between sales and editorial might erode trust he responded: “Responsibility is always something that publishers need to keep an eye on, as is trust.
“If you look at the global brands who are doing native advertising they have done it really carefully and prudentially and if that’s the trend we continue to see then native advertising is here to stay and it will do extremely well.”
Asked about the global concern on the issue of ad fraud, which has recently been making headlines in Australia, Lee noted that it was an ongoing issue.
“I remember speaking at a conference in Australia back in 2005 and one of the topics was click fraud,” he said. “And then again in 2009 we did a conference in Australia where fraud was again on the agenda.
“We’ve been talking about ad fraud for a long time but it has really only emerged in the US in March 2014 as something which is a very big issue.”
He argued that Australia had a key role to play in the debate as an incubator of global issues and trends, but said the debate really needed to be led by clients.
“Australia has always played a very big role in the trends as it has often been an incubator for all kinds of things, fast food packaging etc.
“But advertisers need to drive the conversation. The big brands need to drive the conversation and make some demands otherwise the story is going nowhere.”
Lee also said client concerns around transparency on things like global ad deals between media owners and major agencies would lead to a continued move to take things in-house.
He added: “One of the big global chairman, without naming names, was reputed to have said he was very transparent about not being transparent and I think the brands that we talk to feel they sometimes sign very big global deals and with the big digital enterprises and once the money is in the bank there is not an awful lot of dialogue going on.
“The risk is that clients start to bring things in-house. I think transparency and security – in particular the security of data – are part of that conversation.”
The IAA has an international network in over 76 countries and works to represent the common interests of all the disciplines across the full spectrum of marketing communications.
“We have been around 75 plus years and we like to think about ourselves as a forum for global issues,” said Lee.
“Whether its talking about these issues be it fraud, automation or transparency the advertising speedometer isn’t at the same pace everywhere and one of the things we like to do is migrate that information.”
Lee was speaking as part of a week-long visit to Australia.
Nic Christensen
BORRRRINGGGG…
Of course Michael isn’t going to bag the insidious piece of trash that is Native. “The IAA …works to represent the common interests of all the disciplines across the full spectrum of marketing communications.” It certainly ain’t the consumer’s interests.
And “I don’t think that anyone really cares?”. Wow. Now that’s a self-serving statement that I thought only possible coming from a politician! We’re definitely hanging out at different water coolers because mail in pretty damn contrasting.
Come back to reality, Michael. Native is the shameful secret of a [usually] reputable profession.
Drop the mic. I’m out.
User ID not verified.
One of the more sane opinions lately on native. The reality is that anyone under 30 doesn’t care, and they’re fully aware that this is advertising, they don’t need to be told how the world works.
It seems that the reputation damage from native only happens to legacy publishers. If native does continue to grow (still very much up in the air), it’s these publishers that will struggle while the Buzzfeed clones grow in readers and revenue. Is journalism better off for it? Probably not.
(The late 🙁 ) David Carr summed it up wonderfully: “publishers looking to save the village commons of journalism through innovation should be careful they don’t set it on fire in the process.”
User ID not verified.
If it’s good enough content, if it’s relevant enough content, if it delivers value to your audience – than the trust isn’t damaged – no one refuses a recommendation if it’s truely targeted and adds value.
Problem is most of it is about $$$, if native is going to be used, what do you say no to?
If the answer is nothing, than I very much do care.
User ID not verified.
Interesting analogy, “church and state”. Maybe someone could tap Mr Lee on the shoulder and explain to him some of the problems associated with Islamic State, where church and state are being rolled into on. Nasty nasty nasty!
Trouble is that “native advertising” (talk about double-talk in that descriptor) seriously debases any notion of the common good. If we get to a stage when all public communication is assumed to be about selling me something, then we might as well all give up on any idea of shared values, of the body politic, or even of community.
Worse: I suggest that Mr Lee’s cynical and foolish argument potentially spells the end of “communication” which is necessarily based on transparency and sharing. That’s what “com” implies.
I had thought that the internet and social media were an opportunity to open up (umm…) dialogue between consumers and producers/marketers, but the way Mr Lee is promoting “native advertising” effectively puts paid to any notion that consumers could ever trust a producer/marketer.
And if that trust were to evaporate, you might as well wave goodbye to any value that might ever have adhered to your brand.
User ID not verified.
This is one of those times we act like advertising wankers. Just because some people may not care about the line doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care. Nice one ad industry, nice one. Any thoughts Adam Ferrier?
User ID not verified.
And maybe this recent UK report tells us something about the consequences of welcoming “native advertising” into the media tent:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....accuses-pa
“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.”
Those are the words of the former chief political commentator of The Telegraph, Peter Oborne, who resigned from the paper and launched a blistering attack on the Telegraph, saying it put bank’s interests before readers to save ad contract.
According to the Guardian, “Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator, has resigned from the paper, accusing it of a “fraud on its readers” over its coverage of HSBC. In a blistering attack on the paper’s management and owners, Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, Oborne claimed the paper deliberately suppressed stories about the banking group in order to keep its valuable advertising account. He said it was a “most sinister development” at the paper, where he claimed the traditional distinction between the advertising and editorial department had collapsed.”
User ID not verified.