Nieman Foundation at Harvard
In June, The New York Times published what many considered the “Snow Fall” of native ads. The post, sponsored by Netflix to promote the second season of Orange is the New Black, was an in-depth examination of the need to reform women’s prisons. The story reverberated around Twitter and Facebook, and it was widely praised as potentially being the future of branded content.
All brand-sponsored journalism does not suck. Witness this peach by @mdeziel on women in prison. From Netflix, natch. http://t.co/Jljr6MvzpP
— david carr (@carr2n) June 13, 2014
"This might just be the tipping point for brand sponsored native content"- @shaneoleary1 on the NYT #OITNB native ad: http://t.co/iuKFvwkpKz
— AMS (@AMStrategy) June 22, 2014
The New York Times just published what is probably the best piece of sponsored content you will find. http://t.co/uomKqGdVAY
— Sam Petulla (@spetulla) June 13, 2014
But John Oliver isn’t having it.
In an 11-minute segment on his HBO show Last Week Tonight, the comedian took on the concept of native advertising. While he admitted that the Times’ Orange is the New Black piece was well done, he argued that the point of all native ads is simply to trick readers since they won’t click on traditional banner ads.“As far as native advertising goes, that’s about as good as it gets,” Oliver said of the Orange is the New Black ad. “The reporting is real, and the sponsored branding is minimal, but it is still an ad. It’s like hearing the one Katy Perry song that you like. You think, sure this is the best possible iteration of Katy Perry, but it still feels wrong to be listening to this.”
The entire segment, which is quite funny, is below:
2 comments:
John Oliver is right, although at one point he really nails the problem: If readers aren’t willing to pay for news, news organizations have to find other ways to get paid… and traditional advertising just doesn’t cut it anymore.
I’ve learned this lesson the hard way. When I was just doing the job of a reporter, I never even thought about the financial side to the business. But now that I run my own print (I know… totally nuts to start one in this day and age, right?) and online publications, I have come to realize just how hard it is to convince advertisers to spend money.
Almost everyone wants something more in return. Sure, they’ll buy some ad space, but they want editorial content to go along with it, preferably blended to perfection with the rest of the articles.
News organizations are with their backs to the wall. If they are totally against native advertising, they risk losing the advertiser. So they look for a middle ground that hopefully won’t be too shameful for them while somewhat satisfying the advertiser.
I think what the New York Times and Netflix have done is not a despicable model. Actually, it’s quite admirable. The paper clearly made it known that the feature was paid for, but then it went on with its great coverage and reporting. For me, that is a good model for today’s world of journalism.
What is less acceptable, in my opinion, is what the Atlantic has done with Scientology, throwing on their website a paid puff piece. That is just taking the money and leaving behind all journalistic ideals.
577821 76425I dugg some of you post as I thought they were quite beneficial invaluable 182639
Trackbacks:
Leave a comment