Advertising goes native, and deception runs free

Even while some media organizations roll out new online subscription plans, the Internet continues its steady drift toward a business model built overwhelmingly on money not from readers, but from advertisers. It’s advertising that’s emerging as the revenue source that everybody, from Facebook and Google to newspaper websites and gadfly bloggers, wants a piece of.

That raises perennial questions of media economics and ethics: What limits should publishers put on advertiser influence? How far should they go in shaping their content to enhance its value as a delivery van for paid persuasion?

And how plainly should they cordon off the messages they’re paid to carry to distinguish them from content that’s shaped independently by their own staffs, whether reporters, aggregators or curators?

The latest mini-scandal involving advertising over-reach doesn’t come from an online startup. It’s from a venerable and highly respected publication, the Atlantic, founded in 1857 by Longfellow and Emerson.

In mid-January, the Atlantic posted a lengthy, self-congratulatory epistle from the organization called the Church of Scientology, which is variously assailed as a tax dodge and a loopy cult, praised as a source of spiritual rebirth, and chronicled as a refuge for disaffected Hollywood luminaries.

Now, running ads from controversial sponsors has long been routine among commercial media. But here, controversy erupted over the way the Scientology content—which was soon taken down—drew online comment that was suspiciously glowing, and over the way the item looked.

Although it ran under a small sig, “Sponsor Content,” the article otherwise seemed—in its typeface, composition, placement of photos, and overall look and feel—just like any other Atlantic article.

That had to be intentional, which takes us to the point of this column. The ad was an example of what’s now called “native advertising.” Native advertising refers to paid messaging that is created to resemble the articles and assorted editorial stuff in which it’s embedded.

A native ad is deliberately crafted to blend in with, and with luck, to be indistinguishable from the surrounding content. In that respect, it isn’t really “native,” it’s camouflaged.

Now such crypto-editorial ads, by tradition, carry some identifying tags to warn the reader they’re there only because somebody bought the space. But labels don’t really matter. There’s still an irreducible element of subterfuge to the whole enterprise.

For starters, such labels are used sparingly, and typically consist of some more or less opaque euphemism: “sponsored content” is a good example; “advertorial” (which few civilians recognize as English) is often used. Rarely do you see the straight-up, unmistakable alert, “Paid Advertising.” That would be clear. That would be a turn-off.

But more important, the whole purpose of the undertaking is squirrelly: It’s to appropriate the format of the surrounding publication and harness its credibility to strengthen the authority and persuasiveness of the advertising.

“Native advertising,” in short, is all about deception. You, as the reader, are encouraged to perceive the messages as something other than what they are. And even if, at some level, you understand they weren’t put together by the magazine’s staff, you’re still expected to see them as partaking of the magazine’s trustworthiness, and as deserving something of the same regard.

In the aftermath of this embarrassment, some of the criticism the Atlantic received was surprising, and focused on how poorly the magazine played the “native” game: Nobody, it was said, could mistake the Scientology missive for an article the Atlantic might actually have run. The magazine erred, Charlie Warzel of AdWeek wrote, by “licensing uninteresting and bizarre content that falls well outside the walls of the magazine’s brand.”

Economist magazine managing director Paul Rossi advised publishers to start thinking like ad agencies and get better at concealment: “The real issue is how do  you make content that’s compelling to a reader that doesn’t feel like an ad. That’s the real challenge.”

So the problem was that the deception was inept and easily detected. If that’s it, the solution, it seems, would be to integrate paid persuasion seamlessly into editorial offerings, so that reader resistance is allayed and the ads go down smoothly.

But that’s not it. The more basic problem, as Columbia Journalism Review’s Dean Starkman wrote, is an “existential” one. In that regard, “native advertising” succeeds precisely because it’s so skillfully wrought that it’s imperceptible as advertising, and joins the flow of information and commentary that readers accept as part of the chronicle of topical realities that they trust the news media to provide.

Trouble is, at that point, it’s the entirety of the content that has truly gone native. And corruption has taken a mighty step forward.


7 thoughts on “Advertising goes native, and deception runs free

  1. It’s called ‘advertorial’ and has been known as such for over 25 years. I’ve used it in the newspaper I once owned, but never in a fashion that was not identifiable from regular editorial. It was always clearly identifiable as paid advertising.
    What the Atlantic and others pushing this ‘stealth’ form of advertising are doing by attempting to disguise it even better is to destroy the credibility of their editorial offering.
    I can’t begin to say just how wrong that is, from both a purist stance and from a business sense. Just plain stupid.

  2. It’s not very hard to clearly mark “Sponsored Content.” Plus not every publisher is the Miami Herald that can charge ridiculous CPMs. Do you realize that a publisher with 1,000,000 pageviews charging an average $3 CPM will make $3,000 a month gross with a 100% fill rate…. that is enough to employ half a person after expenses.

    Thwarting small journalists and bloggers potential to make some money to keep afloat without really harming their editorial content hopefully isn’t your goal with this article… because you can mark “sponsored” and unless you’re blind, it is pretty clear. It is actually a FTC guideline. So instead of being destructive to up-and-coming publishers do you have any constructive criticism, or just your one sided view from a career at the Miami Herald?

    1. By far, most of my journalism career was with publications with a tiny fraction of The Herald’s circulation (and I haven’t drawn a salary from them since 1986), so I’m intimately familiar with the challenges and temptations of trying to eke out revenues by persuading advertisers to pay inflated CPMs. Upstart publishers have their work cut out for them, and the more successful have borrowed heavily from trade publishing, leveraging their brands with special events, custom publishing for outside clients, spinoff publications, and lately, even seeking foundation funding. But I’m not in the consulting biz. And in fact, none of this works unless the core brand has a reputation for independence and integrity. Sponsored content is, and has always been, deceitful. It misappropriates and misapplies the credibility of the publication it’s embedded in. Yes, it’s labeled, but its sponsors hope nobody notices, and its enablers furnish it with typographic styling to sustain the fraud. You may say the publishers have no choice, but I don’t agree.

      1. So you don’t agree? It’s obvious that you’ve never had to make your living directly from ad sales. Just be grateful for those who made those sales when you worked in media because otherwise, there would have been no cheque for you on Friday. Sponsored content, while it may be dubious, is not illegitimate, not if notice is given by the publication.

      2. Agreed Wally. Eric, you are also are labeling “Sponsored Content” as only an advertorial. Sponsored content can also mean a normal article “presented by XYZ co.” which has absolutely nothing to do with the editorial content, it really is just another monetization option for publishers. In addition, “Sponsors hope no one notices” Well that is very assuming. If I were to assume, I would say they would like the readers to see they are supporting their beloved publication, as opposed to just ‘deceiving’ them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s