MediaRadar recently did a recent study showing only 37% of brand advertisers weren’t complying with the FTC rules on disclosure in 2016.
But hold on: Native advertising spending will increase 33% from a total of $16.21 billion in 2016 to $22.09 billion in 2017, eMarketer estimate. (We don’t have any growth estimates for fake news, currently.)
Ever wonder about the level of skepticism when more savvy customers continue to ask themselves: Am I looking at fake/slightly fake news or native advertising from a big brand? Do I care?
Brands believe native is working. How much does this come from poor labeling? You have figure a decent part. Fake news stuff? No labels here at all -- which is the point.
Going forward you can be sure both native advertising and fake news will get way more sophisticated -- especially when it comes to slightly alternating the perception of content for consumer consumption.
For some fake news is just lies, or half lies. Last year before the election, there was a story about California Gov. Jerry Brown in Facebook, shared by Breitbart News: "Jerry Brown Signs Bill Allowing Illegal Immigrants To Vote."
Go to the Breitbart site and the headline says “could” allow illegal immigrants to vote. Reading the story, Brown signed a motor voter law, a true story about having the proper identification to get a driver’s license in order to vote.
Native advertising isn’t about “lying.” But for some, there might not be much in the way of “honesty,” either. Overall, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, less than half of readers are able to differentiate between native advertising and real news.
That’s not good. But can you blame fast-moving/low attention span media consumers for buying in? Do they have the time to scrutinize all news and advertising?
Finding the real truth can be a full-time job. And during that investigative time period, consumers will have probably made some badly informed decisions. Just the way some would want it.