Why native advertising is purer than the 6pm news
Following recent debate around the practice of native advertising Rakhal Ebeli argues it could actually help create a better line between editorial and advertising for media.
Have you ever seen a magician play that trick where he holds one hand out to the right, drawing the untrained eye off the prize, whilst all the while a coin is being cunningly produced from ‘ones ear’? Hey presto! Guess what? That doesn’t only happen in magic. It’s happening all around you. Even, would you believe, in the space where news and commercial reality collide.
Rants and raves on ‘native advertising’ like John Oliver’s are entertaining and will get the drums beating as hawks wage war on ‘brand journalism’ with the uneducated marching behind them. But what if those who are riding that wave of anger, claiming the lines of journalism and marketing are being blurred are actually so ‘on trend’ that they’re missing out on where the real action is.. the money is by your earlobe, remember? If you are so confident of your position, that’s exactly where the magician wants you to be, right?
I think if you have a beef against sponsored content, brand journalism, native advertising… whatever you want to call it and however you want to frame it, you are missing the point. In fact, you have actually been missing the point for a long time and now you are shouting it from the rooftops.
Before I go any further and in the interests of full disclosure I will make it clear I am the founder of Newsmodo, a global agency that engages specialist journalists to create content for publishers, brands and other agencies. We have provided exclusive breaking news coverage recently to most major news outlets of the MH17 tragedy, connecting major Australian news networks with dozens of journalists on the ground who provided exclusive content and coverage.
We also specialise in ‘brand journalism’ and work closely with clients across business, finance, FMCG, sport, lifestyle, travel and other sectors to create quality content that informs and engages their audiences.
At least native advertising is legitimate
Call up a publisher and ask the receptionist for the person who creates ‘sponsored content’ and where do you land? Yep, sales. You are buying ad space. This is a transparent process and the advertorial is published with a lovely little, yes admittedly it’s a diminishing little ‘sponsored content’ tag at the top.
We all know the game here, so please stop pretending this is new, stop being outraged, it’s been happening for years, just now, through agencies like Newsmodo, both brands and publishers are getting really damn good at it. The quality of the content is typically exceptional, after all, it has had to satisfy so many stakeholders. The journalists working on sponsored content are typically subjected to strict vetting, and the budgets.. well.. no longer is the first consideration ‘how cheaply can we get this written!’.
Can we say the same for traditional news?
The simple answer is… no. I’ve worked in commercial news environments and I’m aware of commercial advertising arrangements that bleed into programming. Yep, that’s right. Stories that usually may not have been covered are now in the rundown, because of commercial arrangements in place. They’re not even marked as ads people!
How does this happen? Simple, really. It’s tough times and traditional publishers in TV, radio and print are ‘bending’ the rules of engagement to satisfy their sponsors. Simply put… the company speaks to the sales team, buys ads. Deal really should stop there, right? I mean, we don’t watch the news to see ‘sponsored content’… but we do see it, all the time.
Phone calls are made and in a climate where TV networks can ill afford to ‘turn the other way’ powers in the corner offices of the world’s broadcasters and publishers are telling news editors, sport editors, morning show hosts and reporters to preference their clients. Give them coverage they say. Make their dollar go further.
So wait, are you saying ‘editorial’ is corroding sponsored content?
Yes. If you want to take a moral high ground, get one thing clear – Nothing is black or white – particularly with ‘sponsored content’. The ‘wall between Church and State’ was never there folks. It’s imaginary, like the fear created by the ‘war on terror’ and Santa Claus knowing if you were naughty or nice… it positions us to faithfully (naively) accept the status quo. So when ‘native advertising’ comes around… “oh no” we shout (or if you are John Oliver ‘roar’ – like Katy Perry) because what we know as ‘right’ is now being oh-so wronged.
So, if advertising has been influencing editorial content in TV bulletins, newspapers and just about everywhere we turn for news for years, doesn’t ‘native advertising’ give us a chance to clean up the industry? I know if you’ve read this far that you must already know that commercial pressures influence news. So now, why not pressure all publishers and broadcasters to draw a line in the sand. Keep sponsored content at a premium and divert all traffic that way, stopping the bad stench of editorial from diluting the golden egg that’s just been laid… or so those people still staring at the magician’s hand would think.
Rakhal Ebeli is the founder and managing director of Newsmodo 
topics
brand journalism
church and state
content
editorial
John Oliver
MH17
native advertising
Newsmodo
Rakhal Ebeli
“Why native advertising is purer than the 6pm news”
Do people actually watch the 6pm News for news? I thought if wanted news you watched ABC, SBS or any one of the news programs on Foxtel.
User ID not verified.
This article with no facts or concrete examples tries to call our media facing relationships “transparent” for consumers of media, and somehow relates this to the 6pm News not being transparent because of how the content is transacted. Glad to know that the media bubble extends into emerging businesses as well.
User ID not verified.
“Our lies aren’t as bad as those other lies, truly. So our lies are ok.”
You’re industry is in a lot of trouble if this is considered acceptable, or logic.
User ID not verified.
Actually, you are the one who’s missing the point. Sponsored content is not “news” for the simple and defining fact that it has an agenda.
This article is nothing but barefaced lies.
User ID not verified.
NEWSFLASH: Owner of branded content website says branded content is okay. Makes sensationalist claim he’s saving the media. Everyone ignores his ravings.
Nothing to see here people. Move along, move along. This spectacle – of bad ideas wrapped in bad writing – is over.
User ID not verified.
every article i see defending native advertising is written by people who rely on it for their bread. marketing directors, content coordinators, MDs of advertising companies, etc… everybody else thinks it is deceptive garbage, just another business model based around spin, lies and coporate money. hot tip: when viewing articles sympathetic to native advertising, always remember the check the author’s title.
“editorial is corroding sponsored content” – ???
“well.. no longer is the first consideration ‘how cheaply can we get this written!’” – no, now it’s “how can we mislead people into believing this ad hasn’t been paid for?”
User ID not verified.
I love the fact that this piece makes no mention of the reader. Of course media are soiftening on the issues because of revenue problems. But the readers and viewers are leaving in droves. IMO advertorial in places where there is suposed to be journalism will simply accelerate that process.
I don’t care what the advertorial producers say, because they would say whatever. But the publishers and “news” broadcasters had better figure out soon what it is that they do. Because the consumer has choices.
User ID not verified.
It’s hard to make an argument like this when it’s written by people that are founders of the companies making money from it.
“Gun manufacturer: Guns are totally safe”
User ID not verified.
Something isn’t as bad as something else so its ok……didn’t we just hear this same unconvincing defence of native a few days back? Show some respect for your readers intelligence.
User ID not verified.
I think the main point made in the article is that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of commentary, and in some cases, outrage, around one thing – Native – when there is another thing – commercial news influence – that is far more widespread, seductive, secretive and established. It’s a fair point.
User ID not verified.
Matt, not really, are we just doomed to repeat history while one format is on the rise and another has had it’s day?
User ID not verified.
I don’t think this article does proponents of native advertising any favours whatsoever, the logic is jumping all over the place. Branded content can be extremely efficient, but the arguments in this article are pretty damn poor.
User ID not verified.