Native advertising a media credibility crisis in waiting
UTS’s Jim Macnamara argues for greater regulation of native advertising in an article crossposted from The Conversation.
UK media giant the BBC, a perceived bastion of editorial independence, this year moved to expand BBC Worldwide activities into blended advertising-editorial “client solutions”. It’s a sign the emerging practice now referred to as “native advertising” is becoming mainstream.
Use of “embedded” approaches to advertising and promotion have been growing for several years and their forerunners, product placement and “advertorial”, have been around since the early 20th century.
But the placement of Aston Martin cars in James Bond movies and Coca-Cola drink cups in front of judges of TV talent shows are obvious and relatively innocuous compared with the latest advertising and promotion techniques.
New embedded techniques
In case you have missed the emerging debate – and you almost certainly will have missed some of the hidden advertising and promotional content “embedded” in media content because that is the intent – advertisers and marketers are turning to new approaches to combat the effects of declining reach and impact of traditional advertising. Technologies that enable audiences to bypass traditional advertising such as TiVo and “ad blockers” are growing in popularity, and “persuasion knowledge” research shows when consumers view content as intentional commercial or political persuasion, they are less likely to be persuaded.
New advertising approaches go by 20 or more names including “native advertising”, “branded content”, “brand integration”, and “brand placement”. What these techniques have in common is that paid advertising and promotional messages are embedded in media content so as to be at least partially hidden and sometimes invisible to media consumers. Along with renewed interest in “advertorial”, which packages paid content to look like editorial, other embedded content creeping into our daily media diet includes:
- Paid interviews in talk shows;
- Sponsored celebrities promoting products and services on talk, infotainment, lifestyle and even news programs without sponsorship disclosure;
- Paid online posts, comments and reviews;
- Digital publications that are presented to appear as independent media, but are sponsored;
- Advergames;
- Sponsored content on social media; and
- Storylines in TV sitcoms written to promote a product or service.
In the US, Forbes magazine, The Atlantic and The Washington Post have launched native advertising-cum-advertorial products. Forbes launched BrandVoice in 2011, and Atlantic Media followed suit with products such as its “Ideas Lab”, a custom-built digital publication described as “an interactive platform around the most critical issues impacting America’s economic future,” which is fully sponsored by GE.
In Australia, Fairfax Media launched Brand Discover late last year and News Corporation has been publishing and broadcasting various forms of embedded advertising content for some time.
Media revenue from various forms of embedded advertising and promotion was estimated at US$8.25 billion worldwide in 2012 and is forecast to double by 2016, indicating that these emerging formats are substantial and growing.
So what’s the problem? Media companies need to find new revenue streams to address their declining fortunes and avoid collapse, which would not be good for marketers or society.
A lack of guidelines and codes
The problem, according to critics, is at least two-fold. First, and foremost, journalists, media academics, and some consumer groups are concerned there are a lack of guidelines and codes of practice to preserve the important “Church and state” division between advertising and editorial and maintain transparency in the source of media information.
Some media and marketing industry bodies have produced updated guidelines to protect consumers. For instance, the American Society of Magazine Editors (AMSE), which pioneered guidelines in response to concern about print media advertorials in 1982, released updated guidelines on native advertising, sponsored content and paid links in September last year. Also, the Branded Content Marketing Association has released guidelines for what it calls “advertiser funded programming” in which it states that “editorial independence is absolutely central”. But this seems to be not the case in many instances.
The Atlantic’s first foray into sponsored editorial content in 2013 – an article titled “David Miscavige leads Scientology to milestone year”, caused reader outrage and resulted in an apology Atlantic Digital general manager Kimberly Lau who admitted the article “read like warmed-over PR”.
Not surprisingly, journalists are concerned. The New York Times has come out publicly criticising so-called native advertising in a number of articles. Last year its media writer noted that:
“almost all of the publishers running branded content say they abide by the traditional church-and-state separation,” (but)
“the sponsored content runs beside the editorial on many sites and is almost indistinguishable”.
The ABC’s Media Watch program drew critical attention to these practices in July 2013 and broadcast a second critique on April 21 this year expressing concern about the activities of Atlantic Media in the US and Fairfax Media in Australia, warning of consumer deception and corruption of journalism.
Will it work?
Along with major questions about the ethics of these forms of embedded promotional content, a further key question is whether the techniques work. Despite claims that embedded techniques will be the “salvation” of the troubled advertising industry, marketing academics have noted that most measurement still relies on impressions (the number of times a story has been accessed or viewed), with little evidence of awareness, attitudinal or behavioural outcomes.
Given still unanswered questions about its effectiveness, significant ethical questions about some embedded practices, and the risk of a further media audience backlash – not to mention potential government regulatory intervention – advertisers and marketers should pay attention to self-regulation and standards. If they don’t they could see the media and advertising industries plummet further into a crisis of credibility, as well as an economic crisis.
Jim Macnamara is professor of public communication at the University of technology in Sydney. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Impact on audience engagement is the price publishers pay for executing native content badly, and in an increasingly competitive ad market, potentially regulation enough. No audience? No revenue.
It may be a conservative view, but native advertising arguably exposes publishers to greater regulation in any event under Australian Consumer Law, as by sharing in the content creation process with a marketer, the publisher might itself fall foul of false and misleading claims if the communication can be characterised as such.
While the advertiser might ultimately wear the repercussions (ACCC investigation and fines), depending on the circumstances, the publisher might find itself under scrutiny as part of the process.
User ID not verified.
HI Jim
Totally agree that native advertising will dilute credibility for media houses. Veteran journalist, Greg Bright, shared similar thoughts, on our blog few days ago, titled ‘ Native advertising a worrying trend’.
http://www.shedmedia.com.au/na.....ing-trend/
User ID not verified.
Native advertising (jargon for ads disguised as advertorials) are nothing new. Online and print newspapers and magazines cut and paste PR media releases. Savvy readers spot such tricks.
User ID not verified.
Genuine Native executed as part a rounded media strategy and produced in a relevant and meaningful way can be powerful (no one’s got it right in AU yet!) – as a standalone of course it’s to going to work. Real native from an editorial sense is not and should not be confused with Advertorial. If it is, that’s just an instance of poor execution!
Again, yet to see someone do it right here….I welcome some good examples though if anyone has them?
User ID not verified.
thanks, jim.
so true.
User ID not verified.
@Paul Eveleigh is correct. If you’re not savvy enough to spot these, stick with Today Tonight. It’s now part of the fun of reading the news; digesting the content whilst applying the bullshit meter.
User ID not verified.
Hey SJH,
Would love to see some of those great overseas examples of native ads you’ve seen. Maybe post a link and we’ll let you know if we confuse it with Advertorial.
User ID not verified.
Great article, citing some high-profile, current examples – but why is this only being flagged as an item of concern, now?
I would encourage anyone who’s ever said or thought, ‘It must be true, I read it in the paper(s)” and/or “saw/heard it on the news”, to read award-winning British journalist Nick Davies’ book ‘Flat Earth News’ (www.flatearthnews.net), for an uncompromising (and terrifying) uncovery of the sheer depth of distortion and propaganda in today’s global media.
The majority of society are suckered daily by the global news media, into thinking and believing exactly what the big media corporations/ politicians/ lobbyists/ brands/ PR companies want them to – so in contrast, I think that what publishers dependent on advertising revenue for their survival (clearly exempting the BBC, here) are doing with ‘native advertising’ or ‘integrated solutions’ pales in comparison…
Wouldn’t you say?
User ID not verified.
The 20-something me is annoyed that I’ve just found out that a number of the CLEO Bachelor of the year spots are basically being “sold” to hot media agency guys. I mean…..really!?
http://www.adnews.com.au/adnew.....really-are
If you’re hot and you put CLEO in your media plan, you may be in with a chance.
User ID not verified.
The article’s thrust might be distilled to a question of objectivity versus transparency. If you’re running a native ad, and it’s brilliantly looking like the rest of the content of the site, it’s got to be clearly labelled. It’s my understanding that this is law in the US – governed by the Federal Trade Commission. Perhaps something similar should be enacted here in Australia?
The acid test for publishers should be to place themselves in the shoes of the reader and ask: “would I pay to read this?” If the answer is “yes” and hand on heart the publisher doesn’t believe it is hoodwinking the reader into believing the article is purely meritorious – then what’s the biggie?
Native advertising is probably here to stay. All the big global PR agencies are quickly opening offices to handle this type of content. Similarly the New York Times has reported that native advertising is performing roughly as well as editorial content – sometimes better. A feature for the Winter Olympic games in Sochi, produced with United Airlines, was viewed nearly 200,000 times, far superseding a typical editorial piece.
In terms of media role it’s a hot shoe shuffle: brands are moving into the space once occupied by media companies, while media companies are moving into digital marketing.
As for objectivity have news outlets ever truly objective in the reporting of news?
User ID not verified.
“As for objectivity have news outlets ever truly objective in the reporting of news?”
WTF? Because the objectivity of news is questionable, you have carte blanche to lie to the audience….
Adspeak at it’s finest.
User ID not verified.
@Bec, objectivity- or lack thereof, isn’t an excuse. It’s a fact. Particularly when it comes to news, politics and advertising.
User ID not verified.