Shining a Light on the Native Advertising Debate

BlogHer Original Post

Disclosure: I am Vice President, Influencer Marketing at BlogHer. Advertising and social media marketing programs are a significant source of revenue for my company and for the bloggers in our advertising network.

In December, the FTC held a workshop on Native Advertising, the practice of embedding/including advertising messages in editorial spaces. Prompted by concerns that publishers are not disclosing sufficient information to consumers, the workshop was mostly focused on native advertising on publishers’ sites and portals. Although there are some implications for sponsored content on independent blogs, there was nothing in this workshop that replaced or changes the endorsement guidelines updated in 2009.

The FTC regularly holds public workshops to discuss and document the points of view on a topic for which they might issue a regulation. Nothing really new comes to light, but the workshops are a good way to understand the current market thinking on a topic. How it works in a nutshell:

  • Participants file a public comment on the matter with the FTC in order to be “invited” to the workshop (and not all are given speaking slots).
  • During the workshop, the participants clarify and defend these previously established positions.
  • Often participating organizations time related press announcement to the workshop date to maximize the reach of their point of view. For example, the IAB released its Native Advertising Playbook on December 4, the day of the workshop.

Following the workshop, the FTC may (or may not) eventually issue regulatory guidelines.
If you aren’t on the hot seat, FTC Workshops are excellent policy wonk theater. From the coverage, this one did not disappoint. Seen on Twitter, largely paraphrasing commentary by columnist Bob Garfield:

If you were looking for a conclusion or a ruling, though, you would definitely be disappointed at the outcome (to-date) of the workshop. As is often the case, FTC workshops end with everyone realizing just how a) far apart the various protagonists/antagonists are on the issues and b) how confusing the topic is, both organically and as manufactured by the protagonists and antagonists.

Among other issues, the different players in the online media industry are using the term “native advertising” to mean multiple, often disparate things. Many of which already existed in somewhat similar form, online and off. At best, this makes conclusions about concrete action difficult for the regulators. At worst, it makes it obvious that sometimes the lack of clarity is deliberately intended to confuse consumers about the paid nature of the content and implied endorsement. Online and offline, sometimes it is just hard tell where the editorial ends and the advertising begins. Blurred lines (the name of the FTC workshop) indeed, and certainly why the FTC intends to keep a sharp eye on native advertising in the coming year.

I’m watching the ongoing debate with some interest. In part because HULLO ethics policy wonk here! but also because these discussions about native advertising impact my work with brands and influencers at BlogHer. We’ve been doing sponsored content for years, both on BlogHer.com and on the blogs of our Advertising Network members, and have long been a proponent of clear and prominent disclosure of sponsored relationships, even before the revised FTC endorsement guidelines.

Sponsored posts are considered a form of native advertising. I’d argue that sponsored posts are the original native advertising, and many of the newer portal- and publisher- based forms are attempts to mimic the word-of-mouth potential of an authentic influencer endorsement. Other native ads are advertorials that blur the lines between the native editorial of a publisher--the magazine content--and advertising. For example, did the sponsor simply fund the space, and the article was written with the usual editorial objectivity of the publisher, or did the advertiser place the article fully written? Both types of post have their place in the content ecology, but sponsorship and in the case of my example, the level and degree of sponsorship, must be disclosed so consumers can make an informed decision.

On one side of this debate, we have the advertising and publishing industry that wants to expand the opportunities to reach consumers with marketing messages. And on the other, we have the watchdogs who are concerned that consumers aren’t getting adequate information upon which to base their decisions.

No one denies the need for disclosure. The sticking point seems to be what is an acceptable, meaningful disclosure.

We are arguing about the wrong thing. We are having a debate when we should be having a conversation. And not about the best way to disclose. Shaded boxes versus color cues, or whether we call something an ad, advertorial or sponsored, trap us in the minutiae of old media models.

One of the most interesting topics discussed during the workshop was a study conducted by the McCarthy Institute for IP and Technology Law. Among other things the study found that 50% of respondents did not know what sponsored advertising meant. The study also suggested that consumers don’t care that much. Reported website emedia|vitals:

Comments

In order to comment on BlogHer.com, you'll need to be logged in. You'll be given the option to log in or create an account when you publish your comment. If you do not log in or create an account, your comment will not be displayed.