OK, quick, recall the last, oh, five news articles you read today on your mobile device, tablet or desktop. Remember how many of those were paid sponsored content, versus objective or editorial news content?
As growth in online consumption across mobile devices continues—to an increasingly starved attention span, most of us don’t have the time for the disclaimer. It’s the clickable content that matters; get me there and get me there quickly. Ingest and move on.
But what constitutes an “ad” from your news feed is an area of concern of late, a spotlight on the growing pains of the still-nascent branded content/native advertising arena. And there’s no looking back. Research firm BIA/Kelsey predicts spending on paid native ads (articles sponsored by a brand) running on social media sites will increase from $1.53 billion this year to $3.85 billion in 2016—a more than 50% increase in just ONE year.
Now let’s factor in regulatory functions, in particular the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which this past December summoned the media owners to a meeting in Washington, D.C. and advised them to make it clear whether the posting is a native ad—or not. Though concrete wording wasn’t set forth, the FTC basically left it in the hands of the owners to establish and follow best practices—and not make matters worse.
And their hands are full. I scrolled through a number of news feeds recently and came across the following, from the vague (Featured Partner, Presented by) to the literal (Branded Content, Paid Content) And how about The New York Times? They cut to the chase: Paid Posts.
It certainly didn’t hurt the success of the Netflix-sponsored Orange is the New Black, a thorough 1,500-word feature on female incarceration in the U.S. It was produced for the New York Times by their own, newly minted T Brand Studio, a nine-person team charted with creating contents for brands.
But apparently readers aren’t bothering to read the fine print, though in theory they care, because according to a poll conducted by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), 66% of its respondents answered “yes” to the question, “Is clear disclosure needed for native ads?” And a July, 2014 study conducted by Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Edelman, concluded that nearly 60% of the sample group said most native ads they encounter aren’t “clearly clarified.”
So, where to now? The crux of the debate is whether the display content is credible or not. And chances are you’re reading this because you work in the field of advertising, and you’re curious how the outcome, FTC or not, may affect your industry.
But here’s where it gets really interesting. In his piece, Sponsored Content Has a Trust Problem, written by Joe Lazauskas for Contently, the much-sought-after millennial (18-29) set, when asked the question, “Do you think that a news site loses credibility when it runs articles sponsored by a brand?”49% answered “yes,” compared with 66% of 30-44-year-olds, 58% in the 45-60 age range and 62% in the 60 and over set.
Conclusion: I think it safe to say that native advertising is here to stay. It’s rapidly becoming the norm, and it’s up to us—more or less—to see where it goes. The challenge is to maintain transparency and credibility and not rattle the grave of Edward R. Murrow.
(FYI. This article is 100% sponsor-free and is presented by MARKETING newspaper and Eric Cooley, in the public interest.)
•
Eric Cooley is a senior copywriter who has worked on accounts as varied at Boeing, Microsoft, T-Mobile, Peoples Bank and Philips and agencies such as C&IS, VML/Wunderman, S&E, Frog Design and United Online. You can reach him at ericcooley23@gmail.com.
