Native Advertising: The New Rage

Native Advertising: 

The New Rage

from Buzzfeed.com 9/23/2013

We've all seen it; it's that sponsored content article on BuzzFeed that seems seamlessly woven into the fabric of the website. Whether it's a post paid for by Lenovo on 9 Ways to Troll a Fantasy Football League or that list from Strayer University of 13 College Majors that Actually Exist, it's a form of online advertising that is becoming more and more common. Native Advertising, also known as Sponsored Content, is "advertising wearing the form of journalism, mimicking the aesthetic of the host site," according to a recent New York Times piece by Media specialist David Carr. The extent to which it is labeled as advertising varies; Buzzfeed distinguishes between its own content and that sponsored by a "Featured Partner" via a subtle background shift on its home page. Once you follow the link to the article, the look and feel of the page is strikingly similar to all the other in-house-created content on the site save a some skyscraper Twitter and Facebook from the sponsors account feeds and a small logo at the top.

Buzzfeed may be paving the path most aggressively (since it appears to be using Native Advertising exclusively), but there are other publishers that are also offering this new advertising medium including Forbes, The Atlantic, and most recently the New Yorker. Forbes has created the concept of "BrandVoice" - where marketers reach directly to the audience.

from Forbes.com 9/23/2013

Forbes explains the concept as a way to allow marketers to connect directly with the Forbes audience by enabling them to create content – and participate in the conversation – on the Forbes digital publishing platform. It is certainly a way to swiftly and sometimes imperceptibly bring marketers into the conversation. Some argue, however, that it crosses that sacred boundary of blurring advertising with content. How can we trust the journalism that we are coming to rely on from these online publishers if it is actually produced by a 3rd party with an ulterior motive (ie to sell us something or influence our decision making). Where will we draw the line?

The ongoing debate is the subject of Carr's article in last week's NYTimes. He addresses some of the concerns raised over this slippery which some opponents argue has the potential to kill journalism.