Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Has the GDPR law actually gotten European news outlets to cut down on rampant third-party cookies and content on their sites? It seems so
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Dec. 9, 2016, 2:54 p.m.
Business Models

Can readers tell the difference between news stories produced by a publisher’s editorial arm and the sometimes slippery — but often lucrative — native advertising that runs on publishers’ sites?

Forty-four percent of people shown a native ad couldn’t correctly identify the company that had paid for it, according to recent findings released by the content marketing firm Contently in partnership with the Tow-Knight Center at CUNY and Radius Global Market Research. Fifty-four percent of survey participants indicated that they had felt deceived by native advertising before. And 77 percent of survey participants didn’t even identify native ads as “advertising” — describing it either as “editorial content” (34 percent!) or a hybrid (43 percent). (Contently has done similar surveys and found similar results: that people misidentify native ads as news articles).

Focus group responses shed a little light on the nature of some of the confusion:

“I think it’s an article and an ad,” said Sara, the 29-year-old focus group member, as she viewed a native ad on BuzzFeed for Google Maps. “They are clearly promoting Google Maps. They’re showing it — I don’t know what this is.”

Added Glenn, a 48-year-old focus group member, while viewing a native ad co-created between GE and Business Insider: “Well, I guess they co-created it, so I guess maybe that’s not an ad.”

The study focused on readers who came across four specific pieces of native advertising: A native ad for Wendy’s from The New York Times accessed via an in-feed Facebook ad, an ad for Ford on BuzzFeed accessed via BuzzFeed.com, an ad for Kia on The Huffington Post accessed via an in-feed Facebook ad, and an ad for GE on Business Insider accessed via the Business Insider Digital Industry Insider homepage.

huffington-post-native-ad-example

Participants in the survey indicated that “Sponsored” was the most helpful label to mark something as a native ad, even more so than “advertising” (¯\_(ツ)_/¯):

contently-native-advertising-sponsored

The group the Contently survey found was most likely to “trust” native advertising was apparently millennials (45 percent indicating they “trust completely/somewhat”):

contently-trust-native-ads

The study puts forth several recommendations to the FTC for how the commission could improve its guidelines on native advertising, including pushing for “sponsored” as the preferred label for native ads and requiring a publisher to include a sponsor’s name and logo when disclosing native ads on both the publisher’s own site and on social media.

You can read more about the study and some of its additional recommendations here.

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Has the GDPR law actually gotten European news outlets to cut down on rampant third-party cookies and content on their sites? It seems so
Some third-party cookies were still present, of course. But there was a decrease in third-party content loaded from social media platforms and from content recommendation widgets.
Democracy is cracking and platforms are no help. What can we do about it? Some policy suggestions
Here are a few in a new Canadian report: greater transparency requirements for digital news publishers, holding social media companies legally liable for the content on their platforms, and mandatory independent audits for platform algorithms.
How media coverage of epidemics helps raise anxiety and reduce trust
“Telling people about scary diseases without informing them about ways to protect themselves is a good way to cause anxiety and emotional distress — and a bad way to build trust in government health agencies.”