The price of three Daily Mail native ads: $50,000 and a guarantee of 30,000 views
Daily Mail Australia commercial editor Anne Shooter has revealed the online publication charges advertisers $50,000 for three sponsored stories with each “guaranteed” to attract 30,000 views.
She told Mumbrella during a hangout to discuss native advertising the publication can offer such guarantees because of the placement of the story and the quality of the content together with strong headline and images.
“That is why it is premium content…. people will click on the story,” Shooter said, adding that readers have no problem with clicking on content that is sponsored.
Native advertising has split the media with some viewing it as an opportunity to monetise their platforms and audiences beyond display advertising, while others fear it compromises editorial integrity of publications.
Shooter said the Mail differs from some publications, who recruit separate teams to produce sponsored content, by employing their own journalists to write native ad copy. She described it as a “far more effective way of producing quality content”.
“I don’t want a team of advertorial writers. I need proper journalists who would normally write for the site to be writing this content,” she said. “We ask them to do it in their spare time so it doesn’t conflict their other roles.
“That is what makes it such a great proposition. It’s great for the brand because it is truly fitting in with the rest of our content and that is what they are buying – good quality editorial that they are sponsoring. That is the way it ought to be done.”
Freelancers are also used and commissioned in much the same way as for non-sponsored content, she added.
“In some ways it is no different at all. They are great stories that happen to be sponsored,” Shooter said.
She said she remains a journalist more than a commercial manager, arguing that for the content to be “engaging” and for it to comfortably slot in with the rest of the content “it needs to be looked after by a journalist”.
“We really do produce content which is the kind of content that we would write anyway except that it’s in line with something that a brand wants,” she said. “I think that monetising content is fantastic and I don’t feel compromised at all.
“It’s a modern way of getting people engaging with ads.”
Asked if journalists may feel compromised about writing sponsored content one day and then potentially faced with covering a negative story about the same company the next, Shooter said: “I would hope that all of our journalists have enough integrity that they would not allow that to happen. I just don’t think that it’s an issue.
“We are really clear that we would never run anything that is editorial that did not deserve to be there. I don’t think there is any blurring.”
Shooter, who was appointed to the management team of the news site last year and is responsible for making sure native ads on the site are both editorially engaging for readers and commercially useful for clients, stressed the Mail retains control over the stories and emphasised the copy is clearly marked.
“It’s very different from advertorial. Instead of control lying solely with the advertiser and everything being written by the advertiser and in the client’s tone of voice, it’s written in our tone of voice,” she explained. “And we get the sign off. Clients have to take a leap of faith and trust that we will do the right thing by them to make sure the content…is going to be engaging for the reader.
“I have to be very persuasive with the brand that we work with….to make sure the content doesn’t become advertorial.”
Shooter said some “old fashioned journalists” find the practice “a little bit unusual” and admitted she would feel uneasy if the content was not marked.
“It’s a fascinating way of getting people to read about what brands are interested in,” she said.
Why is native advertising considered OK on the newspaper’s website, but not OK in the actual newspaper, proper?
User ID not verified.
The connection is really bad
User ID not verified.
So, the content is written in the same style and tone as the Daily Mail itself… So, huge sensationalist headline, lots of pictures and some limited copy which may/may not be a cut and paste job from elsewhere…
Still, 30,000 PV’s – what more do you want?
User ID not verified.
Is it just me, or does it look like Alex is hitting the pipe in that still?
User ID not verified.
The picture looks like Alex is lighting a bong!
User ID not verified.
Rubbish quality. Waste of time.
User ID not verified.
Hi Four Twenty,
YouTube has a habit of picking some ‘interesting’ stills from videos it seems…
Cheers,
Alex – editor, Mumbrella
Hey, quit hogging that gank pipe, Anne doesn’t look impressed
User ID not verified.
Seems extraordinarily expensive. Isn’t that a CPM of $550?? Crazy money for untargeted advertising. I have a campaign live on Facebook at the moment that is at 82,000 reach, for whcih I have spent $359 – with a relevance score of 8/10. I chose the targeting myself so I know it is only landing with the exact audience I want.
I don’t get it. Why woudl I want to do this Daily Mail native advertising thing?
User ID not verified.
@ I don’t get it,
You really want to compare a Facebook right rail ad to a completely tailored editorial piece with high impact branding? It’s apples and oranges.
Both have have there uses but to even attempt to compare there effectiveness on a cost per basis is incredibly small minded.
I feel sorry for clients if this is the level of thinking some agencies now provide.
User ID not verified.
What worries me is that @I don’t get it” probably works client side, not for an agency.
User ID not verified.
“I don’t get it” the costings would work out to be $1,666.7 CPM.
User ID not verified.
@You wil never get it… If you think a) a “right rail ad” is a commonly used Facebook ad unit, and b) a Daily Mail article page offers better targeting than Facebook, I humbly recommend you get a lesson in Power Editor.
“completely tailored editorial piece with high impact branding” LOL Im guessing you work at a newspaper.
User ID not verified.
Featuring Alex Haze.
User ID not verified.
$50,000 would get you 3 million views on Facebook.
User ID not verified.
B Roach – FYI it’s $50 k for 3 advertorials delivering 30k per adv. Hence 50,000/90 =$555 cpm.
User ID not verified.
I must agree with I Don’t Get it – whilst direct comparisons are difficult, the sheer cost is outrageous. Someone might want to check out some 15 sec cpm’s on TV…actually don’t bother, appearently that medium is dead or dieing.
User ID not verified.
@I don’t get it….He never said anything about the targeting. If you think the impactfulness of a sponsored story/page post ad on FB is comparable to the branding around a native content piece then you are seriously deluded.
I couldn’t tell you the last ad i saw on Facebook, but i can remember a few native content pieces i’ve seen in the last few weeks.
Now is that worth paying a CPM 100 times higher? Probably not for most brands, but maybe for some.
User ID not verified.
@ I don’t get it. Did you just LOL in a comment feed? Your clients must love how relevant you are with tweens.
User ID not verified.
Good to know, but wondered if someone can get in touch with DailyMail team for native advertising (Content advertising). Would love to do it if someone can offer anything like it.
User ID not verified.