My fiance just got an iPad, and so far I feel exactly about it the same way I did one year ago....I'm not sure if it adds any value to my life. Yet, digital marketers are always running to keep ahead, or rather keep up, with emerging technologies, and the iPad presents yet another channel for advertising experimentation. As companies seek to maximize presence and format across the burgeoning types of screen devices, I am always questioning the effectiveness of advertising across all these channels. I know there are very sophisticated strategies developed to help guide professionals in terms of their budget allocations, but as I've stated before, what I find interesting is that to some degree, advertisers are still limited by the templates provided by each medium. Enter advertorials. What is an advertorial?
An advertorial or is an advertisement designed to simulate editorial content, while at the same time offering valid information to your prospective clients.
Advertorials have always existed, and I've had many clients jump at the opportunity of adding this type of advertising to their portfolio mix. It makes sense....who doesn't want curated content next to their products, seamlessly integrated deep within the folds of web content? It's a great way to break free of the IAB molds. It's a great way to reach out to customers in a more engaging way, and it's a great way to validate your advertising.
BUT, what is different about the Internet, in my opinion, is that we expect a lot of content writers to write for free (i.e. bloggers, editors, etc.), and not only that but we pretty much get the news for free, whether it be a limited version of the New York Times, or a news aggregation site like HuffPo. Are we comfortable with the idea of bloggers and the like getting paid to write about about products, and are we comfortable with nondisclosure about such agreements?
Monetization on the Internet is...complex, so it fits sensibly that advertorials help grease the wheels, but are we comfortable with posts blending into advertorials? Can there be a balance achieved where content providers get remuneration, companies can have more advertising options, and the integrity of news content remains steadfast?
2 comments:
I think the final question you ask really gets at the issue. I don't think there is a way of maintaining the integrity of reporting while at the same time maintaining nondisclosure with these advertorials, and once disclosure happens, the advertorial loses a lot of its impact. Unfortunately, I highly doubt that standards will be developed that are focused on maintaining journalistic integrity, and the money is good enough that I believe this is an area that will grow. I recently read a book entitled "White Coat, Black Hat" which detailed how this happens in the pharmaceutical industry, with paid ghostwriters writing "scholarly" articles for journals which promoted a certain drug. Professors and researchers are paid to put their name to the article and so it is almost impossible to ascertain that these articles are not the real deal. Advertorials are less menacing than this phenomenon, but if prominent researchers are willing to put their name to an article they've never read for a fee, it doesn't bode well for maintaining journalistic integrity in other areas where less is at stake.
It's not just actual shilling that's an issue. The grey line walked by companies such as AOL, who had an internal document leaked, as already posing some difficult questions about the quality we can expect from writing online that - at least poses as - legitimate journalism.
Here is a page from "The AOL way"
It shows the fine line between writing interesting content and selling advertising against that content, and writing content that is specifically (and really only) meant to sell advertising. Smart marketing to be sure, and one way to improve the monetization of your content, but what kind of society would we live in if everyone followed such a template?
Post a Comment