Global IAA boss: no one cares about church and state when it comes to native advertising
IAA boss Lee
The global boss of the International Advertising Association (IAA) has dismissed concerns that native advertising is eroding consumer trust in the media saying they are not concerned about the separation of sales and editorial, often referred to as church and state.
IAA managing director Michael Lee told Mumbrella the ongoing global concern about native advertising, typically described as advertising that appears in the news feed of publications and looks similar to the editorial offering, was overstated.
“I don’t think that anyone really cares,” Lee said. “Church and state might just be a hangover from the old days but I don’t think the average consumer really cares.” Citing the global growth of native advertising, which is expected to hit $4.3b globally in 2015, Lee argued it was here to stay “and increasingly saving the bacon of a lot of legacy media companies”.
BORRRRINGGGG…
Of course Michael isn’t going to bag the insidious piece of trash that is Native. “The IAA …works to represent the common interests of all the disciplines across the full spectrum of marketing communications.” It certainly ain’t the consumer’s interests.
And “I don’t think that anyone really cares?”. Wow. Now that’s a self-serving statement that I thought only possible coming from a politician! We’re definitely hanging out at different water coolers because mail in pretty damn contrasting.
Come back to reality, Michael. Native is the shameful secret of a [usually] reputable profession.
Drop the mic. I’m out.
One of the more sane opinions lately on native. The reality is that anyone under 30 doesn’t care, and they’re fully aware that this is advertising, they don’t need to be told how the world works.
It seems that the reputation damage from native only happens to legacy publishers. If native does continue to grow (still very much up in the air), it’s these publishers that will struggle while the Buzzfeed clones grow in readers and revenue. Is journalism better off for it? Probably not.
(The late 🙁 ) David Carr summed it up wonderfully: “publishers looking to save the village commons of journalism through innovation should be careful they don’t set it on fire in the process.”
If it’s good enough content, if it’s relevant enough content, if it delivers value to your audience – than the trust isn’t damaged – no one refuses a recommendation if it’s truely targeted and adds value.
Problem is most of it is about $$$, if native is going to be used, what do you say no to?
If the answer is nothing, than I very much do care.
Interesting analogy, “church and state”. Maybe someone could tap Mr Lee on the shoulder and explain to him some of the problems associated with Islamic State, where church and state are being rolled into on. Nasty nasty nasty!
Trouble is that “native advertising” (talk about double-talk in that descriptor) seriously debases any notion of the common good. If we get to a stage when all public communication is assumed to be about selling me something, then we might as well all give up on any idea of shared values, of the body politic, or even of community.
Worse: I suggest that Mr Lee’s cynical and foolish argument potentially spells the end of “communication” which is necessarily based on transparency and sharing. That’s what “com” implies.
I had thought that the internet and social media were an opportunity to open up (umm…) dialogue between consumers and producers/marketers, but the way Mr Lee is promoting “native advertising” effectively puts paid to any notion that consumers could ever trust a producer/marketer.
And if that trust were to evaporate, you might as well wave goodbye to any value that might ever have adhered to your brand.
This is one of those times we act like advertising wankers. Just because some people may not care about the line doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care. Nice one ad industry, nice one. Any thoughts Adam Ferrier?
And maybe this recent UK report tells us something about the consequences of welcoming “native advertising” into the media tent:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....accuses-pa
“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.”
Those are the words of the former chief political commentator of The Telegraph, Peter Oborne, who resigned from the paper and launched a blistering attack on the Telegraph, saying it put bank’s interests before readers to save ad contract.
According to the Guardian, “Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator, has resigned from the paper, accusing it of a “fraud on its readers” over its coverage of HSBC. In a blistering attack on the paper’s management and owners, Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, Oborne claimed the paper deliberately suppressed stories about the banking group in order to keep its valuable advertising account. He said it was a “most sinister development” at the paper, where he claimed the traditional distinction between the advertising and editorial department had collapsed.”