Why native advertising is purer than the 6pm news
Following recent debate around the practice of native advertising Rakhal Ebeli argues it could actually help create a better line between editorial and advertising for media.
Have you ever seen a magician play that trick where he holds one hand out to the right, drawing the untrained eye off the prize, whilst all the while a coin is being cunningly produced from ‘ones ear’? Hey presto! Guess what? That doesn’t only happen in magic. It’s happening all around you. Even, would you believe, in the space where news and commercial reality collide.
Rants and raves on ‘native advertising’ like John Oliver’s are entertaining and will get the drums beating as hawks wage war on ‘brand journalism’ with the uneducated marching behind them. But what if those who are riding that wave of anger, claiming the lines of journalism and marketing are being blurred are actually so ‘on trend’ that they’re missing out on where the real action is.. the money is by your earlobe, remember? If you are so confident of your position, that’s exactly where the magician wants you to be, right?
I think if you have a beef against sponsored content, brand journalism, native advertising… whatever you want to call it and however you want to frame it, you are missing the point. In fact, you have actually been missing the point for a long time and now you are shouting it from the rooftops.
“Why native advertising is purer than the 6pm news”
Do people actually watch the 6pm News for news? I thought if wanted news you watched ABC, SBS or any one of the news programs on Foxtel.
This article with no facts or concrete examples tries to call our media facing relationships “transparent” for consumers of media, and somehow relates this to the 6pm News not being transparent because of how the content is transacted. Glad to know that the media bubble extends into emerging businesses as well.
“Our lies aren’t as bad as those other lies, truly. So our lies are ok.”
You’re industry is in a lot of trouble if this is considered acceptable, or logic.
Actually, you are the one who’s missing the point. Sponsored content is not “news” for the simple and defining fact that it has an agenda.
This article is nothing but barefaced lies.
NEWSFLASH: Owner of branded content website says branded content is okay. Makes sensationalist claim he’s saving the media. Everyone ignores his ravings.
Nothing to see here people. Move along, move along. This spectacle – of bad ideas wrapped in bad writing – is over.
every article i see defending native advertising is written by people who rely on it for their bread. marketing directors, content coordinators, MDs of advertising companies, etc… everybody else thinks it is deceptive garbage, just another business model based around spin, lies and coporate money. hot tip: when viewing articles sympathetic to native advertising, always remember the check the author’s title.
“editorial is corroding sponsored content” – ???
“well.. no longer is the first consideration ‘how cheaply can we get this written!’” – no, now it’s “how can we mislead people into believing this ad hasn’t been paid for?”
I love the fact that this piece makes no mention of the reader. Of course media are soiftening on the issues because of revenue problems. But the readers and viewers are leaving in droves. IMO advertorial in places where there is suposed to be journalism will simply accelerate that process.
I don’t care what the advertorial producers say, because they would say whatever. But the publishers and “news” broadcasters had better figure out soon what it is that they do. Because the consumer has choices.
It’s hard to make an argument like this when it’s written by people that are founders of the companies making money from it.
“Gun manufacturer: Guns are totally safe”
Something isn’t as bad as something else so its ok……didn’t we just hear this same unconvincing defence of native a few days back? Show some respect for your readers intelligence.
I think the main point made in the article is that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of commentary, and in some cases, outrage, around one thing – Native – when there is another thing – commercial news influence – that is far more widespread, seductive, secretive and established. It’s a fair point.
Matt, not really, are we just doomed to repeat history while one format is on the rise and another has had it’s day?
I don’t think this article does proponents of native advertising any favours whatsoever, the logic is jumping all over the place. Branded content can be extremely efficient, but the arguments in this article are pretty damn poor.