> Are you fing kidding? Sponsored articles are ads. Kinda, but not necessarily in a way that subverts the quality of the article. I used to work in media (and

> Are you fing kidding? Sponsored articles are ads. Kinda, but not necessarily in a way that subverts the quality of the article. I used to work in media (and I'm thankfully out of it now), so I do have some inside perspective on this. Sponsored articles (or more colloquially, "native advertising") don't mean "we write what the brand wants us to". It's usually "Oh, Samsung wants non-display advertising for the Galaxy S10, so they cut a deal with us where we'll write a series of 10 human interest stories about things related to how peoples' lives are improved by mobile technology, and it'll be prominently brought to you by the Samsung Galaxy S10". The story isn't about Samsung's product. It's more about attaching the product and brand name to a topically-related story than it is about shilling a particular brand or product - at least when it's done right. The brand shouldn't have any editorial control over the article, other than a high-level agreement as to the topic. When it's done well, your ad department sells the contract, editorial gets their story series topic, and then there's a hard line between editorial and advertising that isn't breached. It's obviously still advertising, but it doesn't _have_ to be integrity-free shilling. Given the massive hemorrhaging of display advertising revenue, the utter collapse of video-based advertising, and the disappointing returns on donation and paywall models, well-disclosed, editorially-independent native advertising often turns out to be the most reliable (and maybe even most stomachable) revenue stream for a lot of outfits. Of course, the temptation is obviously "well, just let us see the article before you run it..." which slips into editorial control, and then you are just straight-up shilling. That happens, it's ugly, and it is just naked advertising. But it isn't necessarily that bad.