Why John Oliver is wrong about native advertising

Strategy Online ^ | 8/18/14 | Scott Ensign

[ensignsj]

Comedian John Oliver recently took an admittedly pretty funny shot at the concept of native advertising. His basic point was that the blurring lines between objective content and marketing pieces threatens journalistic integrity and consumer trust in the media. Now, I find Oliver to be a funny and talented guy, and he’s done some spot-on stuff (particularly his most famous piece on net neutrality). However, on this topic, he’s really off-base.

Native advertising is everywhere, and all signs point to it becoming even more ubiquitous, particularly as news outlets try to come up with meaningful business models for their online properties. Oliver evidently thinks this is a bad thing; I disagree. Done right, I think native advertising can solve the problem of funding good journalism in the digital age, while actually creating meaningful consumer connections and building (as opposed to eroding) trust.

[ensignsj]

Native ad formats are not inherently bad or subversive. In fact, they have the potential to fund really good journalism into the future.

[relictele]

consumer trust in the media

Er, what's that?

[Liberty Valance]

http://www.copyblogger.com/examples-of-native-ads/

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Its the print equivalent of an infomercial. Who gives a s__t? Anyone who worries about the integrity of journalism, as if it is objective to begin with, is themselves a joke. Journalism has no integrity.

[Larry Lucido]

If natives want to advertise, let them.

[MeshugeMikey]

Cowanbunga Buffalo Bob!

[Blue Collar Christian]

And I thought this was about the billboards off I-40 through the Navajo Reservation.

[Dr. Sivana]

[Dr. Ursus]

Fighting terrorism since1492!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Is "native advertising" the new term for "product placement?"

[9YearLurker]

There’s a reason advertisers pay more for native advertising, and that is because the advertising and content are blurred, generally with a self-serving aspect to the content.

In the “free Internet” world, people will likely put up with it, but there’s no reason to pretend it doesn’t have an ulterior motive—and method.

[9YearLurker]

Definitely in the same family.

[DJ MacWoW]

You Didn't Donate?!

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

[Shugee]

If native ads aren't trying to be sneaky, fool-the-reader tools, then why are they mimicking the real thing? They make me hate both sides (advertiser and content provider) for trying to get one over on me. What happened to using creativity to create a memorable and compelling ad? Oh yeah, the same thing that happened to journalistic integrity.

[a fool in paradise]

Paid political messages in films and television programs should be disclosed at the opening of the program.

The Left is buying messaging in tv shows like Mad Men.

The White House is buying pro-Obamacare scripting into fictional dramas.

The public deserves the exposure of such paid product placements.

Same with the ads for delivery services embedded in films like Addams Family.

And ABC News should preface their plugs for Disney movies that they are OWNED by Disney.

[GeronL]

I noticed in a few of the Korean shows I watch that they list any product placement and stuff, which are allowed but limited. Such as the characters always having drinks or lunch at the sponsoring restaurant and things.

Once or twice a show got in trouble and had to put up an apology on screen at the start of a show for a good 10-20 seconds.