Commentary

A Novel Concept: Advertisers Caring About How Customers Regard Their Ads

A new study from Grady College says that people tend to have a great deal of difficulty making the distinction between real editorial content and native ads designed to look like that content. Even though researchers displayed 12 different versions of a native ad to test subjects, each ad bearing different disclosure labels, such as “advertising,” “sponsored by,” “brand voice,” and “presented by,” only 8% of subjects were able to identify native advertising as a paid message.

For this, many in the current ad community will give themselves a pat on the back, saying absurd things like “That’s because the ad content is so interesting and flows so effortlessly within the content that the person chose to read,” or “native ads are an improvement over display and video because they are not interruptive and aren't subject to ad blockers."

Mike Drexler, who has been in the ad business on the agency side practically since the “Mad Men” era, kinda ignores the study when he writes,  "Another way advertisers have been thinking about getting around ad blocking is, of course, genuine native advertising that's not deceptive. Honest editorial where the advertiser makes a difference and is identified as an important part of the story.”

advertisement

advertisement

In other words create quality content, label it as advertising, and all will be well.

Not really, if 92% of the populations still can't grasp the difference between an editorial story and content (however "honest") developed specifically to lure readers into a relationship with a marketer.

Some native content is harmless and perhaps even expected — like when food marketers provide recipes that call for their specific brand of ingredient. Or fashion sites feature clothes in their edit layouts made by their advertisers.

Hey, if Home Depot can help me unclog the drain with less effort, I don't care whose tools they recommend I use. But I don't feel duped (nor care much) if I know there is a commercial relationship driving the content. I do have an issue with content that seems editorially driven but at some point morphs into a commercial.

This is not just a digital problem. Lots of TV programs now use characters from the shows in commercials in order to trick fast-forwarders into stopping because the show has resumed.  Does anyone in his or her right mind really think this engenders warm feelings among consumers about the brand when they realize they have been tricked?

Let's hope that Turner's new long-form ads they are calling "native plus" are not designed to dupe viewers by duplicating scenes from shows or using characters as pitchmen.

How about we start treating the consumer with some respect? How many among us know the Viking River Cruise brand by heart because their video ads on PBS are quiet, pretty, and respectful of their programming environment? Why is that such a hard concept for others to grasp?

I realize that selling beer, fast food or cars doesn’t lend itself necessarily to ads that are "quiet, pretty, and respectful of their programming environment” — but they also don't have to be loud, stupid or deceptive.

There is no end to the creative thinking in the ad business. But there seems to be some tone-deafness when considering how intelligent consumers will regard our work.

Next story loading loading..