Will the FCC Step in? Advertorials

As I've previously written HERE and HERE, the industry for native advertising, or so called "Advertorials" has evolved substantially in the last few months.  In the beginning, only a few sites were doing and, and many, like Buzzfeed and The Atlantic were getting blasted for it.  Now we know, that almost all websites, inlcuding the New York Times are considering it.

The FCC has recently decided to get involved in regulating the many manipulative practices of online advertising, in order to help keep consumers from getting confused. 

In the last few months, they've issued rules to twitter users (twitter celebrities) mandating that if a tweeter is posting about a product, and getting paid for that product, they must tell their users.  Specifically, the FCC said that they must post "Advertisement" in the tweet. Those 13 characters, with a space, represent 10% of tweeting room, so many have skirted the rules and used "Ad" or something to that effect. In any event, I don't think most celebrities are paying attention to the FCC.

Next, comes possible regulation of Advortorials/native advertising....or advertisements made to look like regular articles on the sites where they are placed. The idea, of course, is to trick the user into thinking that what he/she is reading, is not sponsored content, but news.

The FTC stated, "Regardless of context, consumers should be able to tell what’s an advertising pitch, whether it’s an advertorial, an infomercial, word-of-mouth marketing or native advertising," 
Currently, there are no guidelines for enforcement because there are definitional issues to be decided. But make no mistake, regulation is coming.

Advertorials - Following Up

A few weeks ago I opined that content websites, which only make their money through advertising, should be selling Advertorials, as long as they don't alienate their readers tooooo much.

To remind you, BuzzFeed Ben was called a right winger by a "hater" b/c he sold an advertorial on immigration to the Koch Institute.

In the last few weeks, almost every news organization now agrees with me.  The latest, is NBC breaking news.

Now, these articles have to be done right! You can't screw with your readers as The Atlantic did with its Scientology love fest a few weeks ago.

Not all advertorials have to be controversial.  I heard, that slate published an article that was on its front page, an advertiser liked it, and a week later, the same article was sponsored content and was at the top of the page.  Nothing controversial there.

I think, as they become more and more mainstream, readers will get more and more used to looking for the "sponsored content" indication at the top of any page. 

As a NYT reader, I'll be interested to see how advertorials impact their business.

While BuzzFeed is still the leader, there isn't as big a difference between their decisions and the big news organizations anymore. 

Are all Advertising Dollars Equal?

This professor I follow on twitter retweeted an article (subscription required) on Ben Smith (aka BuzzFeed Ben), which called him a “shill for the right wing”.  Now I don’t know the professor’s motivation for retweeting, so I won’t hold the contents of the article against him. It was an interesting read.

The article's author views himself as an investigative journalist but is actually what I would call a “hater,” to the point that he wrote a book called “The Corruption of Malcolm Gladwell.”  In my eyes, it speaks poorly of your character when you write a book for the purpose of taking down another author.

The article makes a few points to back up the “RightWingBen” assertion, the first being that BuzzFeed hosted an immigration panel funded by the Koch Institute.  While true, the fact that everyone on the immigration panel ended up supporting a path to immigration is somehow lost on the author.  Actual conservatives were pretty unhappy about the panel.

Of course, none of the above has much to do with this class or blog.  Thus, more importantly, the article mentions that BuzzFeed had a webpage/advertisement sponsored by the Koch Institute.  I believe this is the article/webpage to which the author is referring. 

Clearly, this is quasi sponsored content by the Koch Institute.  Now comes ethical question… or the question that sprung up in my mind:

Should a content website, which is a business model that relies solely on advertising dollars, reject advertising due to its political nature? 

I’d argue that as long as the material isn’t offensive to your readers, you should be accepting money/advertising from all sources.  TV stations do it, newspapers do it, and now even online news portals have said they will do it.  The Washington Post and Politico both recently announced they were doing something similar, with the advertorial, allowing sponsors to post content.

In other words, I have no problem with BuzzFeed posting an “advertorial” written by the Koch Institute.  I’m sure BuzzFeed understands the economics of its choice and is willing to take the risk that its growing readership won’t go somewhere else for their adorable duck pictures.