4 ms·

http://mashable.com/2013/06/25/call-to-hacktion/ http://mashable.com/2013/06/25/call-to-hacktion/ http://mashable.com/people/lauren-drell/ http://mashable.com/p

http://mashable.com/2013/06/25/call-to-hacktion/ http://mashable.com/2013/06/25/call-to-hacktion/ http://mashable.com/people/lauren-drell/ http://mashable.com/people/lauren-drell/ http://mashable.com/2013/08/16/hdhacks-recap/ http://mashable.com/2013/08/16/hdhacks-recap/ So they talk to a "Branded Editor" who writes the intro and then you post it as a series of native articles which is just marketing content straight from Home Depot. It seems BP would be able to do the same thing which is effectively identical. Maybe this seems fine to you but it doesn't to me. It is one thing to have what are essentially links to other sites as "native advertising" its quite another to let them shill on your site. Imo anyway.

cheald 12y ago
This is standard business development - mutually-beneficial partnerships which result in business gains for both parties involved. The series you linked is, IMO, a pretty decent example of native advertising. Original content was produced, the partnership with Home Depot was very clearly and loudly disclosed, at no point were there "Here are the links to the Home Depot(R) items you need to build these things, go buy them" links stuffed into the content, and the content is related to Home Depot's business (and may in fact incentivize people to go to Home Depot to buy things, the horror!) and yet is not "Home Depot is the best, Lowes sux, go buy all your stuff at Home Depot". To let a brand "shill on your site" is called advertising. It's fine to hate it, but it is what it is. At question here isn't the practice, but rather, the degree to which it's made clear to the reader what is advertiser-produced and what is not, and the question of whether advertising copy is being pitched as not-advertising or not. Given the chance, how would you do it better?
- opendais 12y ago
  > Given the chance, how would you do it better? > It is one thing to have what are essentially links to other sites as "native advertising" You already have "Presented by" posts that link offsite. Only use those types of "native" ad units. It works with Google, it works on Reddit, etc. It has no conflict of interest issue. You don't have the issue of "Presented by" not being interpreted as "Paid for by" [which is what it is and not everyone will realize it]. Etc. Get rid of the shill syndication that is basically "reporting on the market we sell stuff in". But hey, if you are happy with it, go for it. I'll just go elsewhere.

cheald 12y ago

This is standard business development - mutually-beneficial partnerships which result in business gains for both parties involved. The series you linked is, IMO, a pretty decent example of native advertising. Original content was produced, the partnership with Home Depot was very clearly and loudly disclosed, at no point were there "Here are the links to the Home Depot(R) items you need to build these things, go buy them" links stuffed into the content, and the content is related to Home Depot's business (and may in fact incentivize people to go to Home Depot to buy things, the horror!) and yet is not "Home Depot is the best, Lowes sux, go buy all your stuff at Home Depot". To let a brand "shill on your site" is called advertising. It's fine to hate it, but it is what it is. At question here isn't the practice, but rather, the degree to which it's made clear to the reader what is advertiser-produced and what is not, and the question of whether advertising copy is being pitched as not-advertising or not. Given the chance, how would you do it better?

opendais 12y ago
> Given the chance, how would you do it better? > It is one thing to have what are essentially links to other sites as "native advertising" You already have "Presented by" posts that link offsite. Only use those types of "native" ad units. It works with Google, it works on Reddit, etc. It has no conflict of interest issue. You don't have the issue of "Presented by" not being interpreted as "Paid for by" [which is what it is and not everyone will realize it]. Etc. Get rid of the shill syndication that is basically "reporting on the market we sell stuff in". But hey, if you are happy with it, go for it. I'll just go elsewhere.