4 ms·

I appreciate your intentions, and you make a good point about bad native advertising not being a "new" thing. However, I think as rational, reasonable people, w

by yid 12y ago

I appreciate your intentions, and you make a good point about bad native advertising not being a "new" thing. However, I think as rational, reasonable people, we have a hard time accepting that this idealistic intention you express is what will actually happen in practice: > "Good" native advertising is the practice of letting brands pay to attach their names to thematically-relevant articles, whose content is not bought, directed by, or advertising the brand who wishes to advertise on it. It rings very much like industrial sponsors of medical research, and that has failed in particularly spectacular ways in the past.

cheald 12y ago
It's a tricky balance, make no mistake. I'm not involved in sales, but my understanding is that "run our PR fluff" pays really well, and it doesn't require any man-hours on the media company's end of things. Financially, it's massively tempting. But there's an awareness that that sort of thing comes at the cost of reputation, trustworthiness, and engagement; several years ago we'd run that sort of thing as clearly-marked "sponsored posts" (another commenter had a few examples from 2010-2011 linked below). Those never converted well, never engaged well, and generally left readers feeling a little ripped off. Nobody liked them. By contrast, the "modern" native advertising we do tends to be some of our highest-engagement content. It's generally high-effort, well-researched, well-produced stuff (and has to be, in order to satisfy our obligations to the advertiser) that people enjoy and which converts well. I think that rational and reasonable people are right to be suspicious of the practice; after all, the industry has an established tradition of advertorials already. But I think it's worth pointing out that the "native advertising" trend is about moving away from advertorials and towards content that more naturally marries media and advertiser interests. In a perfect world, nobody would have to run native advertising. But in the meantime, when it's done properly, I don't really have any issue with it when it's transparent and isn't just a reprint of a PR release.

by yid 12y ago

cheald 12y ago

It's a tricky balance, make no mistake. I'm not involved in sales, but my understanding is that "run our PR fluff" pays really well, and it doesn't require any man-hours on the media company's end of things. Financially, it's massively tempting. But there's an awareness that that sort of thing comes at the cost of reputation, trustworthiness, and engagement; several years ago we'd run that sort of thing as clearly-marked "sponsored posts" (another commenter had a few examples from 2010-2011 linked below). Those never converted well, never engaged well, and generally left readers feeling a little ripped off. Nobody liked them. By contrast, the "modern" native advertising we do tends to be some of our highest-engagement content. It's generally high-effort, well-researched, well-produced stuff (and has to be, in order to satisfy our obligations to the advertiser) that people enjoy and which converts well. I think that rational and reasonable people are right to be suspicious of the practice; after all, the industry has an established tradition of advertorials already. But I think it's worth pointing out that the "native advertising" trend is about moving away from advertorials and towards content that more naturally marries media and advertiser interests. In a perfect world, nobody would have to run native advertising. But in the meantime, when it's done properly, I don't really have any issue with it when it's transparent and isn't just a reprint of a PR release.