“Camouflage is a game we all like to play, but our secrets are as surely revealed by what we want to seem to be as by what we want to conceal”– Russell Lynes
Banner ads just don’t cut it anymore. It’s time to make way for some new advertising formats and ways to engage and inspire readers beyond the margins of the written page. The term ‘Native advertising’ has been getting quite a lot of buzz, with some industry pundits citing it as the ‘holy grail of advertising.’ Banner ads have become an uninspiring ad format and publishers are left with no other choice but to plop them on their sites to keep afloat. With mobile in particular, there are several factors that limit campaign success such as small screen-size and lack of ad relevance. To add to that banner ads are disruptive and intrusive and these can be solved through the native format.
Last week I caught myself lost in a black hole. The deep, dark, mysterious and the fascinating world of YouTube. I tuned into Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and I saw the episode in which he tackled the topic of native advertising. Native advertising includes ads that are integrated seamlessly (i.e. “natively”) into a website, mimicking content for users to engage with, rather than appearing overtly advertorial. To put it simply:
Native Advertising is the art of camouflaging.
Ads disguise themselves and hide between editorial content to engage customers. However, controversy has stemmed from the ever-blurring line between editorial content and advertisements—a controversy John Oliver reviews in his skit.
Native advertising—articles paid for and/or written by a brand that live on a publisher’s site—has emerged as a powerful and popular new advertising tool over the past few years. Media companies like BuzzFeed, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic have all invested heavily in the creation and distribution of native advertisements on behalf of brands. But with it has come controversy, with many debating whether native advertising is fundamentally misleading readers by cloaking an advertisement in the guise of a story. Publishers have attempted to address this concern by using different labeling, fonts, colors, and other tactics to make the ads look different.
John Oliver does admit that the growth of native advertising is somewhat our, the consumers’, fault. I mean, how often do you actually click on a standard ad? So advertisers have had to adapt to our online behaviors. As much as Oliver and others complain about native advertising, it doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere anytime soon. Bottom line: Consumers are sick of the status quo and brands want more vehicles for advertising beyond the shallow banner ad. Publishers are finally catching on. It is turning to be really valuable asset for advertisers.
Why is it so valuable? Because consumers are engaging with native content. But is it really this massive form of trickery as Oliver suggests? Let’s say you’re browsing BuzzFeed and an article title catches your eye. You click through and are presented with a list of 15 images that entertain you for a short period of time. There is a clear value exchange. You give the site traffic and in return, you receive entertainment. Sounds like a fair exchange. If you clicked on the content, obviously it’s relevant to your interests; unless the content was jam-packed with product placements or propaganda, you probably received some sort of value too, whether it was information, entertainment, etc. This is why, when executed correctly, native advertising delivers such impressive marketing results. In the video, John Oliver focuses on native editorial content, but what about native video ads? As interruptive, pop-up, autoplay video advertisements crowd the space, brands and advertisers have sought out video ad formats that are less intrusive and more engagement-friendly.
These kinds of video ads are seamlessly integrated into a website so as not to interrupt the user experience, but enhance it instead. Precise targeting capabilities allow advertisers to show users video content that directly aligns with their interests, thus presenting a value exchange: a view and maybe even engagement for a few minutes of relevant entertainment. Clients’ video ads are opt-in, which means a user has to initiate a play, and they’re all tailored specifically to that user’s interests. These kinds of ads are the most valuable because they attract genuine views and foster consumer-brand relationships.
Native advertising isn’t treachery or trickery—it’s just a way for brands to tell a story without being immediately labeled as advertising content and missing out on potential content consumers. Truth be told, I believe it is important to clearly delineate what is actual editorial from what is advertising, although I believe there is inherent potential in the native format. I’d call for brands and publishers to push to make disclosures of brand sponsorship even more pronounced and educate consumers a little more about their intent. Having said that, if done right, like telling/sponsoring a good story, both the brand and the consumer win. Native advertising nobly attempts to bridge the gap between piquing the intellectual curiosity of consumers while appealing to brand marketers who through ads, fund editorial content.s
Though native advertising has been cast in a negative light as of late, its value to advertisers is undeniable. As long as native advertising is marked as such and offers some sort of value to consumers, it will continue to play a vital role in digital marketing campaigns.
Commenti