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.
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.
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/
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.
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?
thanks, jim.
so true.
@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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
“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.
@Bec, objectivity- or lack thereof, isn’t an excuse. It’s a fact. Particularly when it comes to news, politics and advertising.