Ethics For Sale? – The Role of Native Advertising

Will news stories like this become more than a typo?
There’s a new trend in online news that is creating waves. It’s called Native Advertising and it’s already all around you. And that means that it should be part of any modern-era or near-future game.
What is Native Advertising?
There is a current affairs programme in Australia that watches the media for exaggeration, error, and – at times – outright fabrication, without fear or favor. It’s called (not too surprisingly), Media Watch. On Monday April 21 they featured a story on the show about Native Advertising, and reported at some length the current controversy about the practice. You can read a transcript of the show (and possibly view it online) at the Episode 12 page of the show’s website. Watching the episode, I had a few thoughts on the subject beyond those offered, or quoted in the reports.
Native Advertising is the practice of advertisers sponsoring content to appear on news sites, not just advertising. Sounds simple, almost trivial, doesn’t it? But the more you dig into it, the more significant this change in behavior appears – at least to some people.
A summary of the controversy
Stories and articles on a news provider’s main site that look and feel just like the stories around it but that are actually paid for and often produced on behalf of an advertiser blur the lines between advertisement and news story. The characteristics identified by Junkee’s founder, Tim Duggan, and quoted by Media Watch are:
- Quality content,
- Inspired by a brand, and
- Delivered ‘In-stream’.
“Quality” in this context simply means that it has to look as interesting as any other story on the site, and be as indistinguishable from it as possible.
The big problem is that mainstream news sites are being forced to adopt the same practice by the need to stay competitive. There’s the Guardian and the BBC in England, the Washington Post, New York Times, Time, and many others – they are all doing it. In November last year, the Wall Street Journal identified the trend and warned, “…as the push toward native ads gains steam, the already murky distinctions between ads and non-ads will only get murkier. Not long from now, most of the paid messages you encounter online will be dressed up as unpaid messages, and figuring out which is which will be an ever more difficult task.”
The implied criticism is that advertising is being dressed up as news, compromising the independence of the media upon which we increasingly rely for information.
The second part of the criticism is that the media outlets hosting this ‘news’ are selling their credibility, or at the very least, putting their credibility on the line. And that can go horribly wrong, as The Atlantic discovered last year when it presented seven pages of ‘Sponsor Content’ for the Church of Scientology, producing howls of criticism.
And some are simply concerned that they are selling this credibility for peanuts, for insufficient revenue to actually keep the media operation financially viable. If the major news institutions fail, and many of them are doing so, all that will be left will be sites offering paid advertising dressed up as content.
Advertising disguised as content is not new
For years now, advertisers have known that an ad that’s catchy enough or interesting enough can go viral, and that’s been the holy grail of many an advertising agency. They soon discovered that they were more likely to succeed if their campaign didn’t look like an advert. People are less inclined to engage their “cynicism circuits” if what they are being presented with looks like programme content, and hence the claims by the advertisers look and sound more credible.
The theory is that everyone wins – the audience get entertained, the advertiser draws attention to his brand, and the hosting site draws traffic, enabling it to sell advertising to others. And if you can generate enough buzz that the story gets picked up by mainstream media, the rewards that you reap are many millions of times what you would expect to get for the same costs expended in traditional advertising.
It’s even become entirely normal for advertisers to try out their advertising ideas for mass-market campaigns using “vectors” such as YouTube (which became really interesting during the last couple of election campaigns here in Australia when the major parties started doing so). At the same time, advertisers were trying to get traction with the viewing audience through traditional media by trying to make their ads look more like content, at least here in Australia. I’ve no doubt the same trend was experienced world-wide.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of agencies geared to producing traditional advertising absolutely sucked at producing anything that really looked like independent news; we were obviously seeing advertising, and the efforts to circumvent cynicism only drove it to new heights for a lot of people. So, as soon as social media platforms became businesses funded by advertising revenue, it became inevitable that they would make the leap from content distribution to content creation, setting up in-house advertising departments. If anyone knew how to create and package something that would appeal to their audience, they did.
From this perspective, all that’s really happened is that agencies have become much better at making advertising watchable/readable. Remember that the goal of native advertising is to provide and publish an advertisement that is indistinguishable from the content surrounding it – and the publishing institution sets the standard for that content. If they publish rubbish, the advertiser can publish rubbish. If they publish impartial and factual information, that’s the standard that the advertising has to reach as well.
What Native Advertising amounts to, ideally, is product placement in news sites.
Content being paid for by advertising is not new
It’s been the case for over a century that advertising revenues are what fund newspapers. Subscriptions have been a secondary revenue stream for quite a long time, now. The problem that established news organizations have is that the advertising revenue is drying up. It was always possible to publish a newspaper that was fully-funded by advertising, but for three big reasons, this didn’t happen:
- Subscription Revenues were the traditional base, and provided a bottom line that was always there, where advertising could be fickle at times;
- Independence and Authority are attributed to information that we pay for; and
- maintaining the fiction that subscription revenues paid for the newspaper enabled the news outlet to assume a position of editorial authority over the advertising, in other words to pretend that they were independent of the advertisers.
Journalistic Ethics are all predicated on the theory that news production – content – is independent, and can be held to a higher standard. Every movie or story about breaches of journalistic ethics all center on the compromising of that standard in favor of some vested interest, whether that be an advertiser, a business that is also owned by the owner of the newspaper, or politically motivated.
But, in reality, this is a polite fiction and has been for a very long time. As soon as individuals became wealthy enough to both own (or co-own) a newspaper and another business, independence of the news was compromised.
The Net Effect: Direct Connection
So what is the actual effect of Native Advertising? The reality is that it weakens that fictional distance, and requires advertising to rise to the standards of the remainder of the journalism being published. It removes that fictional bulkhead between advertiser and publisher and acknowledges the reality for all to see – provided that the journalistic standards are upheld.
The Ethical Jungle?
But that’s a big proviso, and always has been. Businesses the world over since the second world war, and since the 1960s and 70s in particular, have been focused on short-term profits rather than building for the long term, and so have governments. That’s the reason our cities have crumbling infrastructure. The conflict between a media outlet publishing something critical of a particular organization or not doing so because they advertise in the outlet has always been a conflict between the short-term (keeping the advertiser happy) and the long-term good of society (impartial and unbiased reporting of the true story).
In this brave new world, that’s not so very different from the old, will publishers be less inclined to impartiality?
Controversy and sensationalism makes for good viewing and good reading, and unless its lethal to the target, produces nothing more than a blip on the profit-and-loss sheet. The only exception is (sometimes) when a company is accused of activity that the social zeitgeist of the time has deemed unacceptable. Many companies who successfully spin corporate mistakes emerge stronger than they were before; the key is to be seen to act to correct whatever the problem was.
So I don’t think they will be – most of the time. And on those few exceptions, where a mismanaged company or political office really could go under as a result of a bad story – think Enron & Watergate, respectively – a diversity of advertisers insulates the publisher of the content to a large enough extent that they have the choice of sacrificing their credibility or telling the story. If the business affected is part-owner of the media organization, they may even make enough through additional sales/clicks of the story to compensate for the brief diminution of share price.
There is, in fact, a counterforce trying to manufacture controversy for the media attention that it brings. “Company in crisis” makes for a great news cycle – if it’s followed, a day or two later, by “Company saved” or “Company solves problem”.
So the ethical landscape may have become a little more tangled, a little more complicated, but by no means has the ethical battle for independence of media been lost. The real enemy of independence of media are plutocrats with dominance over a large segment of the populace – Citizen Kane in the guise of Rupert Murdoch – because that subtracts from that “diversity of advertisers”.
Campaign Mastery & Native Advertising
Long before there was a name for it, I’ve been employing Native Advertising here at Campaign Mastery. Some of the articles that have been posted here have been paid for, either by gifts of review copies or direct funding to my bank account. But I don’t have a problem with that, and neither should you, because the editorial requirement is that each of these articles is as useful and relevant to the readers and site objectives as anything else that gets published here. In other words, it has to be a good article first, and a sponsorship platform second.
When I accept a product for review, I make it clear that it will be an honest review, with no sugar-coating. And it’s the policy here to state outright if we were given a free copy to review, so that if there is any bias that results, our readers can take that into account. Our Policies page puts it plainly and simply – if there’s a link to a service or product or website in an article, readers should assume that there might be a vested interest. And if I write something that someone disagrees with, I’m more than happy to offer them an opportunity to rebut, either as a comment, as an addendum to the original article, or in a new article.
Nevertheless, everything I’ve ever said about a site that I’ve linked to, or the content of that site, has always been 100% genuine. There’s been no distortion, and I’ve even refused some offers because I wasn’t certain that Campaign Mastery could stand behind the product being offered – the last occasion was just a couple of weeks ago (and no, I’m not going to name names). I’ve also never accepted any offers of ‘ready made’ articles provided by sponsors – and there have been quite a few such offers over the years – because I was not convinced that the article would be of value to the readers.
In a nutshell, Native Advertising has never been a problem here because I (and Johnn, back when he was part of the operation) were always aware that what we were offering up was our credibility. The rule of thumb has always been “would I be happy reading this if this were not my website?”
The Potential Negatives
Yes, there are potential negatives to Native Advertising. I can’t escape thinking about various advertising campaigns over the years that have fabricated laboratory testing results, or even entire institutions, to give their claims credibility. Fortunately, we have a history of penetrating consumer affairs television here in Australia that delights in exposing such nonsense. Everything from health foods to dietary supplements to insurance fine print to toothpaste to shampoos to … well, you get the point – starting back in 1984 with a series called The Investigators, which was so successful that it was pinched by one of the commercial networks.
Currently there are three shows that dominate the subject matter in Australia: Media Watch (who inspired this article), Gruen Planet, and, especially, The Checkout (the links are to the Wikipedia pages for these shows, for those who may be interested, here are links to the shows’ respective home pages:
A potential erosion of standards and a further erosion of editorial independence are the obvious dangers. Increasing cynicism on the part of the public is inevitable, regardless – the genie is out of the bottle – and that will have its own social impact. If the quality of journalism is compromised downwards to meet the advertorial target, that’s a problem. Centralization of power over media content is a huge problem, and by directly linking advertisers and content, could become even worse. Potential exposure to opportunities for corruption on the part of journalists will increase. Members of the public with a story to tell or a whistle to blow may be less inclined to take it to the mainstream media, and that would be a definite negative. And a trend towards sensationalist journalism, “balanced” by fluff journalism (21 cute puppy pictures, 20 celebrities who have lost weight) is another potential problem.
The Potential Positives
But there are potential positives, too. Diversity of sources can mean diversity of opinions. Funding of genuinely independent journalism can be strengthened. The quality of advertising, to the point where it is worth paying attention to, would be a massive benefit.
There’s always going to be someone who will do the wrong thing, given the opportunity to do it and get away with it. So long as journalists have the funding to uncover those wrongdoings and the editorial permission to tell others about it, journalistic integrity is secure.
The Cynical Assumption
I always consider the possibility that any positive story about someone or something is the result of advertising, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. When I read a buyer’s review on Amazon, I always assume that – at best – their tastes and mine might be different, and at worst, they may be biased (either for or against). Such reviews inform my decision to buy or not to buy, they don’t make that decision.
I also consider the other side of the coin when I read something with a negative slant. I want information; I can’t trust an opinion unless I know and respect the provider of that opinion. Information, however, lets me make up my own mind.
And that’s the thing that makes those advertisements dressed up as TV ads obvious: They promise information and then provide opinion. That broken promise immediately triggers my cynicism, and I therefore immediately discount the opinions and become prejudiced against the product in question.
The Ethical Blueprint
The one thing that separates the possible positive outcomes from the possible negative ones is having a strong ethical blueprint. And there are five simple parts to achieving the positive and avoiding the negative. These are things that the content publishers have to provide;
Editorial Policies in black and white
Media sources need an editorial policy that’s spelt out in black and white for all the world to see, and you need to ensure that all content, regardless of its source, is subject to that policy. That’s why I published “The Ethical Reviewer” way back in February 2012. In terms of this discussion, you might find the section “The ethics of paid articles” (near the end) to be especially relevant.
More Than Mere Words
Media outlets need to have that policy be more than promises and hot air – they need to be willing and able to back it up. That means that a clause needs to be in the agreement for the publishing of externally-sourced or -funded stories that requires the content to adhere to the editorial policy and permits the removal or redaction of content that doesn’t measure up. Furthermore, you have to have full editorial control over the content. What you are defending with these policies is your credibility. You don’t want to sell it – but you might be willing to lend it out if the content merits it.
Biting The Hand
There will be times when honesty compels you to bite the hand that feeds. If something is rubbish, a media outlet has to be willing and able to say so. If a bank is ripping off their customers, you have to be able to tell the story. And you have to make that policy clear to the content providers whose material you are publishing or disseminating. The far more difficult question to answer is whether or not you should continue to accept advertising or sponsored content from that source after you have publicly castigated them; to my mind, that depends on exactly what they have done wrong, and what they are actually doing to correct the problem (not just talking about doing something to fix the problem). A mea culpa is not enough.
I would love to see confidentiality agreements outlawed in settlements and verdicts. I don’t think it will ever happen. Forcing businesses to admit publicly to wrongdoings and mistakes, and putting some sort of scale on those mistakes, can only force companies to try and find an option to put a positive spin on the settlement. Challenging a verdict becomes more expensive than being seen to do the right thing – unless you are absolutely convinced that you did nothing wrong, and not just in the legal or regulatory sense. If you do something wrong, try to fix it – not cover it up. If you have subordinates, it’s your responsibility to make sure that they are doing the right thing.
And anyone submitting a paid-for or sponsored article – or even a product for review – has to accept that the media outlet reserves the right to be critical of them or their products, if warranted. Explicitly.
Rivalries
Rivalries are rife in business. Any article that is critical of a product, institution, or service must be insulated from any claim that it is even slightly jaundiced because of such a rivalry. When a media outlet accepts an article, they have to be especially wary of this, even by inference.
Disclaimers and attribution within the article are not necessarily enough, but they are a start.
Verifiable Facts
News is about providing verifiable facts. If an article is an example of Native Advertising, any claims that it makes have to be backed up with Verifiable Facts provided to the publisher, and which the publisher is free to utilize as they see fit. You can say anything you are legally-permitted to say in an obvious advert; Native Advertising has to be held to a higher standard. In fact, it has to be held to the same ethical and journalistic standards as the rest of the content.
The Impact on RPGs & Fiction
Okay, so we’ve dealt with the social commentary regarding this not-so-new phenomenon, at least for the most part. If anyone is reading this for my real-world opinions on the subject, you can skip this section and the next, if you want.
Conflicts of journalistic ethics always make for a good, dramatic, story. Exposure of social propaganda or criminal activity, regardless of the source, is always a compelling narrative – when presented the right way. Whistle-blowing will always generate headlines. Native Advertising, in terms of telling adventure stories in an RPG or story, is simply another element that has to be taken into account, or may be the direct cause of the conflict, another window into the story.
If describing the Native Advertising impact is absent, it will noticeably detract from the verisimilitude of the story. A lot of such fiction is all about assuming the worst case, and pitting some individuals against those responsible in a quest to reveal the truth; that won’t change. The violation of ethics in journalism, or the misleading of the public, factor into a huge number of plotlines. This exploration of the perils, pitfalls, and possibilities of Native Advertising have given the writer/GM all he needs to integrate the phenomenon into his plotlines.
The Impact on the Gaming Industry?
When I was developing the background to my Zenith-3 campaign, I thought about sending letters to some of the major corporations, asking where they see their company and their products in fifty years time. What pie-in-the-sky projects do they have tucked away that might come to fruition – never mind the functional technicalities, I don’t need those, I can fictionalize them. I didn’t do so because (1) I couldn’t afford it at the time, and (2) I was unsure of how many responses I would get.
Native Advertising within a near-future RPG could be the answer. Get Toyota or Ford to provide a vision of the future, and put it in the section on transport. Get Panasonic or LG or Sony to write about the future of consumer electronics. Include their content, and maybe some pretty pictures, and help to fund the product.
A fantasy RPG is a trickier proposition, but even there, it could be done. Organic Foods. Energy Drinks. Pharmaceuticals. Hardware suppliers. Tool manufacturers. Remember, too, the proposition that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic” – so talk to those high-tech firms about the future, strip away the how-it-will-work and wrap some fantasy trappings around it. Want to create a new take on a hive mind? Talk to a manufacturer of computer network devices like Cisco about autonomous devices controlled by a network.
Sooner or later, it might just happen. The more mainstream acceptance of RPGs there is, the less unwilling corporate entities will be. And think of the cross-promotional potential. “The car of your fantasies”. “The Thirst Of Adventure”. Getting those companies to promote their involvement promotes your product at the same time.
Is it selling out? Maybe. I don’t think so. Would the legal complications be so extreme as to prevent it from ever happening? Maybe. Possibly even probably. Do I think someone will try it, anyway? Definitely.
The Impact on all of us?
Native Advertising could be beneficial, or it could be a disaster. Or it could be somewhere in between, with elements of both. There’s not all that much that is new about the concept, when you get right down to it. Will there be a few trainwrecks along the way? Sure. But there will also be some genuinely uplifting social benefits from time to time.
The Media Watch episode makes a point that “young people don’t seem to mind”. Despite a cliché that suggests that older people are more inclined to be cynical and world-weary, I think the younger generation are actually more prone to apply cynicism to everything they see – and don’t care. If someone’s going to be taking advantage of you anyway, you may as well be entertained in the meantime.
Or maybe I’m just being too cynical.
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
April 29th, 2016 at 12:52 am
[…] Ethics For Sale? – The Role of Native Advertising – Everyone should read this. But it doesn’t do much to serve Campaign Mastery’s primary mission. […]