3 ms·

As a reader the key thing for me is transparency. If Dell purchases a traditional banner ad on Mashable I can reasonably assume that they had no input on the ar

As a reader the key thing for me is transparency. If Dell purchases a traditional banner ad on Mashable I can reasonably assume that they had no input on the article, even minimal input about the article subject. But native advertising, for the lack of a better work, is sneaky. For all I know Dell may have simply suggested the article subject. Or they may have submitted spelling or grammar revisions. Or written the entire article at Dell corporate headquarters. The only bulwark I have, as a reader, is your word. A promise that your editorial process will not be compromised by advertiser interests. The editorial process is a black box that I can't open or inspect. And that should concern me. I recently watched a PBS Frontline documentary on the creation of the mass-surveillance programs under Bush and continued under Obama. One scene stood out in my mind. The editor of the New York Times had a story, maybe as early as 2003, that contained Snowden-esque revelations about the burgeoning mass-surveillance programs. After a meeting with top-level officials, including members of the President's cabinet, he decided to axe the story. The NYT editor had an opportunity to bring the public into the discussion about mass-surveillance. But he made a mistake - he held back. His poor judgement allowed the program to continue to grow unchecked for nearly a decade. The point is, if the editorial process of the nation's "paper of record" is so amendable to the interests of the state, why should anyone believe a tech publication like Mashable is any less amendable to corporate interests? The only way to restore trust is to verify. Add good start is to embrace technology like the AdDetector plugin. Publish a list of URIs of all articles that contain native advertising, so tools like AdDetector can easily identify and label such articles. Let us know how many words are written by staff, how many are written by the advertiser, and who decides the subject matter. Give us transparency. On one level I really don't care if Mashable or any other publication re-prints corporate-written articles whole cloth. Just tell me about it so I can make an informed decision about what I'm reading.

cheald 12y ago
I absolutely agree. Transparency is critical. IIRC, that was the primary focus of the FTC proceedings, as well - to make sure that where content was sponsored, it was responsibly disclosed to the reader. It's a matter of concern to publishers, advertisers, and regulators alike. > if the editorial process of the nation's "paper of record" is so amendable to the interests of the state, why should anyone believe a tech publication like Mashable is any less amendable to corporate interests? Well, for one, corporate interests can't legally destroy the company, throw its employees in prison, seize their assets, or do the other various things that the government can. The other thing is that if Brand X won't agree to play by the rules, we can go do business with Brand Y. It's a legitimate concern, but I do think it's fundamentally different. My concern with things like Ad Detector is that I think it feeds a fundamental misunderstanding of what native advertising is, and breeds mistrust that isn't necessarily warranted, because of the lack of distinction between advertorials and advertiser-not-involved-in-content-production articles. Having more information is good, but if the plugin leads people to believe that not-advertorials are advertorials, then it's not doing anyone any favors.
- click170 12y ago
  > but if the plugin leads people to believe that not-advertorials are advertorials, then it's not doing anyone any favors. I think part of the point is that we already think that as consumers. I feel like you and your well-intentioned colleagues may be fighting an uphill battle against an already-established colloquial definition of Native Advertising. Plugins like this are given rise because people already feel tricked by Native Advertising, and for those who choose to use the plugin it's safe to say we're fed up with it. From our perspective, you people (publishers) had a chance to not abuse this but unfortunately a few bad apples have ruined it for you. Don't hate the plugin that protects your consumers, hate the publishers who ruined it for the rest of you.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > I think part of the point is that we already think that as consumers. Exactly. We've burned ourselves on this too many times on too many different occasions. Instead of full transparency, I'd wish to see a publisher going full-blown, overdrive, in-your-face transparency. Don't wait for a browser extension like this. Put the big sign at the top of an article that says "yes, this content was paid for by XYZ", or "company XYZ paid to be on all banner ads in this article, but didn't have any say about the content". Publishers, be honest with us, and slowly, you may regain our trust.
    - bostik 12y ago
      > Publishers, be honest with us, and slowly, you may regain our trust. But only for a while. How long do you think it would take until some publishers would accept extra payments to attach a more "favourable" sign to an article? I would give it less than 6 months. (In other words: maximum of two fiscal quarters.) The next logical step would be to accept payments to withdraw the sponsorship banner altogether, followed by outright extortion to keep the banner away. (Only it wouldn't be called extortion. It would be sold as tiered pricing.) That is how much trust I have in the online publishing industry these days. And I fear I am not cynical enough.
  - cheald 12y ago

cheald 12y ago

I absolutely agree. Transparency is critical. IIRC, that was the primary focus of the FTC proceedings, as well - to make sure that where content was sponsored, it was responsibly disclosed to the reader. It's a matter of concern to publishers, advertisers, and regulators alike. > if the editorial process of the nation's "paper of record" is so amendable to the interests of the state, why should anyone believe a tech publication like Mashable is any less amendable to corporate interests? Well, for one, corporate interests can't legally destroy the company, throw its employees in prison, seize their assets, or do the other various things that the government can. The other thing is that if Brand X won't agree to play by the rules, we can go do business with Brand Y. It's a legitimate concern, but I do think it's fundamentally different. My concern with things like Ad Detector is that I think it feeds a fundamental misunderstanding of what native advertising is, and breeds mistrust that isn't necessarily warranted, because of the lack of distinction between advertorials and advertiser-not-involved-in-content-production articles. Having more information is good, but if the plugin leads people to believe that not-advertorials are advertorials, then it's not doing anyone any favors.

click170 12y ago
> but if the plugin leads people to believe that not-advertorials are advertorials, then it's not doing anyone any favors. I think part of the point is that we already think that as consumers. I feel like you and your well-intentioned colleagues may be fighting an uphill battle against an already-established colloquial definition of Native Advertising. Plugins like this are given rise because people already feel tricked by Native Advertising, and for those who choose to use the plugin it's safe to say we're fed up with it. From our perspective, you people (publishers) had a chance to not abuse this but unfortunately a few bad apples have ruined it for you. Don't hate the plugin that protects your consumers, hate the publishers who ruined it for the rest of you.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > I think part of the point is that we already think that as consumers. Exactly. We've burned ourselves on this too many times on too many different occasions. Instead of full transparency, I'd wish to see a publisher going full-blown, overdrive, in-your-face transparency. Don't wait for a browser extension like this. Put the big sign at the top of an article that says "yes, this content was paid for by XYZ", or "company XYZ paid to be on all banner ads in this article, but didn't have any say about the content". Publishers, be honest with us, and slowly, you may regain our trust.
  - bostik 12y ago
    > Publishers, be honest with us, and slowly, you may regain our trust. But only for a while. How long do you think it would take until some publishers would accept extra payments to attach a more "favourable" sign to an article? I would give it less than 6 months. (In other words: maximum of two fiscal quarters.) The next logical step would be to accept payments to withdraw the sponsorship banner altogether, followed by outright extortion to keep the banner away. (Only it wouldn't be called extortion. It would be sold as tiered pricing.) That is how much trust I have in the online publishing industry these days. And I fear I am not cynical enough.
- cheald 12y ago