I say the problem starts with the format: the jarring thing about the Scientology “article” is that it looked like, mimicked, aped, a genuine, bona fide Atlantic article. And the more that it looked, felt, and read like an Atlantic article, the more successful, the more “native,” it was.
In that, it was no different from the IBM post, which Tracy found, that was also sponsored content.
It was an attempt by an outside organization with its own agenda to pass itself off as a “part of the content,” native to the site.
But it’s not. And it never can be.
Ha ha ha, these attempts at reinventing the advertisement as some sort of "native" article are truly hilarious. :) There's a simple solution to all this: charge your readers for content that truly adds value. Provide some free articles so that they know you exist and what value you could provide, if they paid. It's not rocket science, they're called subscriptions. The WSJ has been doing it for more than a decade. The fact that all these other publications are too stupid to do something so basic is why they will all go bankrupt very soon.
#1 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 16 Jan 2013 at 06:53 AM
Is this any worse, or any less clearly marked, than "advertorial" that's run in hardcopy newspapers and magazines for decades, and sometimes with content about as skeezy? I say no.
#2 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Wed 16 Jan 2013 at 10:38 AM
How does this episode compare to the LA Times Staples Center "news" insert when Staples Center opened?
#3 Posted by Paul T, CJR on Wed 16 Jan 2013 at 11:10 AM
I agree with Charlie that the Atlantic ad didn't feel native. I think the issue is that it fell into the native "uncanny valley." If looked like an Atlantic article, but it didn't read like one. Anyone who read it knew it was propaganda. A successful native ad would be written by Atlantic journalists in the house style, about something that an advertiser wanted—basically product placement.
The two best examples of native advertising I've seen are Buzzfeed (examples: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nevada http://www.buzzfeed.com/cwarrow) and Tumblr (http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2012/12/6816545/it-marketing-or-it-journalism-case-tumblrs-storyboard). Buzzfeed is known for their pop culture lists, so they can easily adapt that form to focus on whatever an advertiser wants. Tumblr just wants to hire people who are using their platform; they're basically doing PR for their users and placing it in newspapers.
I agree with you that that's dangerous for independent journalism; how can journalists be expected to independently report one day and report on something at an advertiser's behest the next? Buzzfeed is probably the exception rather than the rule; Buzzfeed contributors can easily write sponsored lists about Nevada (or even Scientology) instead of writing independent lists about cats, but how could the Atlantic do a longform investigation at the behest of a sponsor?
#4 Posted by Peter Sterne, CJR on Wed 16 Jan 2013 at 11:51 AM
Thanks, everyone
Socratic, Seems to me advertorials are basically ads. That is, they don't really aspire to be "part of the content." If that's the goal, then it's the same, and a problem.
Paul, Staples center is pretty much a cautionary tale for native ads. The dynamic here pushes toward blurring the lines. Once you've crossed it, and readers discovered they've been had, it's not pretty.
Peter, good points. But buzzfeed's adopting the practice as a startup is different from say, The Atlantic, which has a lot more credibility to lose on the experiment.
Ajay, I agree, subscriptions are the purest way to go, if you can do it, though the WSJ's model has several revenue streams.
#5 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Wed 16 Jan 2013 at 01:28 PM