There's been a fair amount of controversy in recent months about native advertising and its appropriateness as an online marketing tool. But what's all the fuss about?
Ultimately, the debate centers on whether sponsored advertising in its various forms can be readily distinguished from real editorial content. In other words, are we being cleverly deceived by innovate push-advertising techniques that 'masquerade' as legitimate content, and what is the long term impact of these techniques on the level trust in publishers and the quality of their readers experience.
There have been some high profile blunders recently that have fueled skepticism around the issue (namely Businessweek's controversial piece on the Church of Scientology - http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-15/the-atlantic-the-church-of-scientology-and-the-perils-of-native-advertising), but the balance of opinion seems to swinging progressively towards the notion that both publishers and advertisers can benefit from this highly effective tool without compromising the essence of the user experience.
The outcome it seems will depend on the parties' ability to optimize the native advertising experience. This calls on advertisers to work harder at creating ads that resonate more carefully with their target audience and on publishers to better integrate these ads with the requisite amount of due care for their most valuable assets - us.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-15/the-atlantic-the-church-of-scientology-and-the-perils-of-native-advertising
https://blog.shareaholic.com/lowdown-native-advertising/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2014/03/25/inside-forbes-10-battlegrounds-to-watch-as-native-advertising-marches-on/
No comments:
Post a Comment