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.
Why is native advertising considered OK on the newspaper’s website, but not OK in the actual newspaper, proper?
The connection is really bad
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?
Is it just me, or does it look like Alex is hitting the pipe in that still?
Hi Four Twenty,
YouTube has a habit of picking some ‘interesting’ stills from videos it seems…
Cheers,
Alex – editor, Mumbrella
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.
The picture looks like Alex is lighting a bong!
Rubbish quality. Waste of time.
Hey, quit hogging that gank pipe, Anne doesn’t look impressed
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?
@ 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.
What worries me is that @I don’t get it” probably works client side, not for an agency.
“I don’t get it” the costings would work out to be $1,666.7 CPM.
@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.
Featuring Alex Haze.
$50,000 would get you 3 million views on Facebook.
B Roach – FYI it’s $50 k for 3 advertorials delivering 30k per adv. Hence 50,000/90 =$555 cpm.
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.
@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.
@ I don’t get it. Did you just LOL in a comment feed? Your clients must love how relevant you are with tweens.