Native Advertising - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Rachel Gies
rg265214@ohio.edu

Via https://www.mindsea.com/native-ad-opportunities-risks-beware-thin-blurry-line-native-ad-riches-brand-liquidation/

In the world of advertising, if you're not first, you're last. In the dog eat dog world, both advertisers and media have been forced  out of their traditional ways to find a new approach to pay for their content as well as promote their product. Thus, branded content and native advertising were born.

Ethical Issues

The partnership formed between advertisers and the media to create native ads and branded content has added entirely new ethical dilemmas to the industry. Although it seems like a win-win for both parties involved, what about the readers?

The problem lies in trying to pass off branded/native content as real content. If we want to gain and keep our readers trust, then we must be transparent about our content. DO NOT, under any circumstances, try to pass off paid content as editorial content. In the long run, this will only hurt your readership. Readers will feel deceived, trust will be broken, and people will be less inclined to believe that you're content is sincere.

Is it Ethical to Use Branded/Native Advertising?

Yes, I believe that if you follow a set of ethical guidelines then branded/native advertising can be used ethically. First and foremost, I think that it is essential to educate readers on what native advertising really is. If they are informed that it exists and for what purpose it exists, then they will be better equipped to identify it. However, I don't think that it should be difficult to pick out. If the content is paid for, then it should clearly state that it is an advertisement or that it is sponsored. According to Forbes, "Nearly two out of five publishers using native advertising are not compliant with Federal Trade Commission guidelines for identifying such content" (Fletcher, 2017).  With such a high rate of non-compliant advertisers, it makes it harder for anyone to trust this sort of advertising.

According to FTC guidelines, "Disclosures that are necessary to avoid misleading consumers must be presented clearly and prominently" (FTC, 2015). The FTC uses 3 categories to help advertisers ensure that the disclosure is clear. These categories are proximity and placement, prominence, and clarity of meaning. However, you're probably wondering what ads qualify as a necessary disclosure. The FTC says, "The more a native ad is similar in format and topic to content on the publishers site the more likely that a disclosure will be necessary to prevent deception" (FTC, 2015). Although this may seem ambiguous, it is always better to be safe than sorry. If there is ANY reason at all that your reader could confuse your native content as editorial content, then be sure to use a disclosure.

In conclusion, branded/native advertising is not completely bad or completely good. Depending on the context, it can be either. The ethical dilemma with paid content is not whether or not you use it, but rather the way in which you use it. If you are being open and honest with your readers, then this type of content can be beneficial to all parties involved.

Offensive Advertising

Maria Stroia
ms973013@ohio.edu

Being Innovative In A Fast-Paced Society

In a world where people are constantly being bombarded by advertising, it can become increasingly more and more difficult for marketing professionals to get their message out there. Ads no longer just advertise a product, but add to the brand as a whole. Creative ideas must catch the intended audience's attention and be memorable. Good ads stick with the viewer even after they are exposed to the ad.

How Far Can You Go?

As marketing and public relations professionals work harder and harder to catch their audience's attention, they also must be sensitive to the many ways the audience can perceive the message. Recently, an ad by Dove soap went viral for all the wrong reasons. The brand Dove, often known for their campaigns meant to uplift and inspire women, missed the mark with a short Facebook spot that pictured a black woman removing her shirt and becoming a white women, then the white woman removing her shirt and becoming an Asian women. The ad appeared on Facebook and only lasted about 4 seconds long, and was a part of a larger campaign that was accompanied by a longer ad that was not offensive. However, many viewers were only exposed to the Facebook spot.

Of course, the ad was not intended to imply that white women are better than black women, however, many viewers believed that the ad subtly reinforced that message, and that Dove missed the mark in what they were trying to communicate. Dove apologized for the misunderstanding, but many viewers vowed to boycott Dove, especially because they have had some offensive ads in the past. The hastag #DoneWithDove began to trend on social media.

How could Dove have let something like this slide? Such a big company surely has a great budget for advertising, and many ads are likely to be vetted before being produced. But in todays fast-paced digital market, ads must be produced and published faster and faster, allowing some unsavory ads to slip by without going through things like focus groups or legal counsel.

Take A Stand

Despite the fact that offensive ads may never be 100% preventable, there are ways that marketing and PR professionals can protect themselves from being in situations. They need to speak up! Be sure that the vetting process is taken seriously, and they are listening to the opinions of those who did not work on the campaign. Be sure that you are considering minority groups when you are planning your campaign, and not glossing over serious issues.

The platform The Branding Beat offers 12 examples of real offensive advertising that was published, while also including a few steps that can help guide someone who is vetting an ad. Guidelines such as "Don't Be Insulting" and "Keep It Clean" are simple things to keep in mind while producing ads.

Following steps like these and listening to the voices of others can help prevent putting your company and client in a difficult situation. Firms must have guidelines for vetting their creative ideas.

Branded Content vs Editorial Content

Brooke Davis
Bs263114@ohio.edu

Branded Content vs Editorial Content 

When a reader clicks on an online article often times Ads will pop up wanting the reader to click and follow its link or several ads or banners will surround the article advertising a product or service. This is known as branded content, but sometimes it is trickery to detect. Today media outlets go as far as writing an article based on an ad to disguise the ad as editorial content.

Via Stylefeed.com - Example of branded content disguised as editorial content

So how different is Branded Content compared to Editorial Content?

Branded Content - (also known as branded entertainment) is a form of advertising that uses the generating of content as a way to promote the particular brand which funds the content's production.

Editorial Content - Content that is not advertising based. It is content written and published by editorial staff or publisher of a newspaper, magazine or any other written document.

Ethics of Branded Content 

Is using branded content in editorial pieces ethical? 

In a 2013 issue of Public Relations Tactics, Ann Willets argues that it makes economic sense to use branded content in editorial articles but it could jeopardize readers trust. By using branded content in editorial content it presents ethical challenges but it is also necessary to stay in business, but when has it gone too far?

When a publication is marketing content but trying to make it look like editorial content - they're gone too far. This is why it is important to create your own code of ethics or follow the PRSA Code of Ethics 

A few examples of PRSA Codes are as follows: 

- Honesty

- Loyalty

- Fairness

It is important to remember these codes when writing and publishing articles. Both PR professionals and journalists have an obligation to the public to be fair and honest - If trying to make branded content look like it is editorial content, is that fair to your readers?

Via TheDrum.com

Good Branded Content

We know that branded content exists and we know the ethical challenges it can cause, but is there a way to use it for good? Absolutely. 

Branded content gives advertisers a way to engage with consumers and it benefits news publications financially. The way to stay truthful to readers and keep endorsers happy is to partner with advertisers that have the same ethical goals. What do I mean by this? 

When news outlets understand their target audience and their values they can pair up with companies that appeal to the intended audience. This is a more natural and honest way to publish editorial content and branded content without manipulating the audience and gain more readership. 

We still have a long way to go in the news world to understand how to use branded content in a good way along with editorial content, but as long as we apply our code of ethics and follow guidelines we can produce good and fair content. 

Here is an example of how editorial content and branded content is used today.

Via Last Week Tonight

Sneaky Little Advertisers

Adrianna Davies
ad497714@ohio.edu

Defining a Native Ad
Advertisers are coming up with sneaky ways get their products known. One of the infamous ways has been given the name "native advertising". This means that companies are making their ads look similar to online articles on the website they are being posted to. These ads trick customers and make it more difficult for them to tell the difference between what is an ad and what is an editorial. Here's a link to 12 Examples of Native Ads for examples of how sly these native ads and their creators can be.

Many believe that people have the right to know when they are viewing paid advertisements. There is an issue that transparency between the readers and the company is becoming nonexistent. Even movies and television shows have certain placement of products that are meant to be subtle. The best way to win over the trust of their readers and viewers is to disclose who the publication is promoting and which posts have and will be considered native ads.

Native Ads Aren't Obvious (And That's on Purpose)
The problem that most news and information staffs are having is that advertisers are taking charge of the content that is sent out in these types of ads. Social media is a prime example of  companies lacking disclosure on what is an advertisement and what is real news. Most companies don't use the word "advertisement" with these ads, but use other words that would imply that this is an ad. Twitter, for example, uses the word "Promoted" and Facebook uses the word "Sponsored", but neither come straight forward to say that these posts are advertisements.

Photo via Hashtags - This picture shows the yellow arrow with the statement following that says "Promoted by United".

Photo via Amadeus Blog - This picture shows the a "Suggested Post" on Facebook and the word "Sponsored" towards the bottom of the post.

Many people would not associate these words with these posts being paid advertisements and that is exactly what native advertising is. They work to blend in and intrigue you into reading more information about these companies. New guidelines have surfaced with these new ad techniques. Disclosure of these ads have become necessary, especially when these ads blend into the web page's typical formatting. Keep an eye out for other Native Ads by educating yourself on the different types of native advertising.

Fixing the Problem

The main driving point for the argument against native advertising is that readers simply want to know what is an ad and what is news. The problem isn't just on the advertisers trying to sell a product, but the journalists that help with creating and publishing these ads, too. There is a definite need for separation of journalism news and advertising. 

The best way for writers to distinguish between native ads and editorials would be to use the words "Sponsored Content" or some other combination to show that the native ad is actually an ad. Another suggestion is that companies should NOT use the same or similar font to the editorials in their publication so it is made more obvious that these are two separate things, news and advertisements. My PRSA offers some helpful tips for advertisers to consider when creating native ads and how to show that these are not the same as their editorials.

The Normalization of Malicious Advertising

Ryan Severance
RS482415@ohio.edu


There is a vile trend that's increasingly dominating our social media feeds, newspapers, and favorite websites. It doesn't care about privacy, has no regard for common decency, nor does it serve the greater public interest. Rather, it's centered on the proliferation of misleading or downright false information. We're talking, of course, about advertising.

It should come as no surprise that advertising in mass media poses a unique set of ethical dilemmas and business challenges to producers and consumers of news and information alike. History is no stranger to malevolent advertising, which has spread racism, sexism, and other forms of hatred across the airwaves in the name of profit for generations. What's new, however, is today's social media companies, massive advertising firms, and the unchecked forces of globalization that are making it easier than ever before to communicate, and thus to spread disinformation.

Increasingly, today's social media behemoths, from Facebook to Twitter to Weibo, are all confronting the same problem; how to change the public perception that they're harming society with misinformation and downright lies. Notice that I say change the public perception, rather than fixing the problem; don't kid yourself that these social media companies actually care enough to fight this problem, nor should you be so foolish as to believe this is an inadvertent byproduct of their system. Indeed, this entire fake news phenomenon and slew of vicious, misleading advertisements is the point of these platforms, not a byproduct of them.

Today's vicious advertising mishaps aren't failures; they're features.

Source: Oberlo.com

Few people have more to gain from the gross bastardization of our news and information ecosystem than men like Mark Zuckerberg. Tech behemoths get paid billions of dollars - Facebook's market valuation is now more than half a trillion - precisely because they're so savvy at spreading around lies and deceit. While the Zuckerbergs of the world approach the public, hat in hand, to say how remorseful they are for their ad's negative effects and to promise they can't change public opinion, they're simultaneously making the opposite pitch to the advertisers who they exist to serve; advertise on Facebook, on Twitter, on Instragram, and we will change hearts and minds in your favor.

The results of this have been disastrous - for us. For the social media feeds that allow these fake ads to fester in our timelines, the results have been extraordinarily lucrative. There is no greater commodity in the 21st century than the human attention span, and the Zuckerbergs, followed by their hordes of advertisers, have our fully undivided attention and the expensive clicks that come with it.

Human beings have a psychological need to felt wanted. To buy new things. To accumulate value in material form. Facebook, Twitter, and the advertisements which infest these platforms like termites understand this, and manipulate our longings to rack up huge profit margins. We've always known advertisements have been bad for us; we never imagined they'd hijack our own socialization platforms, finding and exploiting our weaknesses with such ruthless efficiency.

The worst part is this isn't likely to change; the public is concerned, media practitioners are concerned, heck, even Congress is upset. But who cares? In this day and age, when have those three actors ever been able to constrain advertising? To constrain the Zuckerbergs of the world? Never. This problem will only grow worse; the misuse of advertising to achieve nefarious ends is only beginning. We are at the dawn of a new, digital era - one dominated by deceit and plagued by misinformation. All in the name of profit.

Don't believe me? Maybe we should check out my Facebook page - I've got a great bridge to show you.

The Trouble In Advertising

Courtney Smith | cs340114@ohio.edu

Picture Credit: Marketingland.com, 2016

The Trouble In Advertising

In today's media society, we are faced with more digital advertising than ever before. There is advertising on social media websites, commercials, YouTube videos, and even Netflix series. It is extremely common in today's world to hear, "Ugh, I hate ads!". Advertisers are coming up with new and innovative ways to grab the attention of consumers through various outlets, but the fact of the matter is, this type of digital advertising is effective on multiple levels.

In today's blog post, I am going to discuss how digital advertising is affecting the way marketers are reaching the consumers.

Facebook Ad Gone Wrong

In one of the readings for today, the 'worst Facebook ad ever' was discussed, referring to an image that circulated around the social media networking site showing a dead Canadian girl for advertising purposes of a dating site. This case has made major headline news in not only Canada, but the United States as well. Facebook has since publicly apologized for the post.

This type of situation makes consumers wonder, "How far will advertisers go to get our attention?". The answer is simple. They will go as far as they need to go. So long as this form of digital advertising continues to work for companies, they will continue to utilize it.

A World Without Advertising

It is hard for consumers to see just how effective advertising is on them from their own perspective. We are quick to skip ads on YouTube as soon as the option comes up or scroll right past a post on Instagram that is sponsored, but try to recall how long these advertisements stay in the back of your mind. Would these advertisements help in brand recall? Are these the products you would remember the most? Could these advertisements possibly be aiding your consumer decision making?

Another article that was shared to read for today was one discussing the solution to ad blocking. The subtitle of this article reads, "Ad Blocking May Usher In the Great Era of Earned Media". As the article states, ad blockers have been around for years but they have never been mainstream. Mobile ad blockers are already proving popular with the public as they are utilized to block most display ads, search ads and even some video pre-rolls, like on YouTube.

The author of the article wrote that this shift will likely push publishers to mediums such as Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. In other words, the social media networking sites that millennials are most often using in today's society.

What's Next?

It is hard to imagine a world without digital media advertising in today's society. This is something millennial consumers especially have become so accustomed to, it seems like second nature almost. It would be strange to scroll through Facebook without seeing an ad for your favorite online clothing store.

Is ad blocking the thing of the future? As consumers, we have to wonder what advertisers will do next to grab our attention through marketing. Without digital media, what outlet will they take over?

Problematic Advertising

Alexandra White
aw946814@ohio.edu

Problematic Advertising

Advertisers' Obligations 

Just like journalists and PR professionals, those in the strategic communications and advertising fields have a moral obligation to remain ethical when communicating with the public. Advertisers must remain truthful in order to inform the public honestly as well as to encourage competition in the marketplace.

Advertisers must also be cautious as to how they frame their messages in video and graphic advertisements.

Many companies have come under fire (especially on social media platforms) for tasteless advertising. Many of these companies did not fully consider the ethical conflicts in their advertisements and have since damaged their reputation because of careless advertising.

Controversial Pepsi Commercial (2017)

In early 2017, Pepsi released an ad starring reality TV star and model, Kendall Jenner. The commercial attempted to reflect the current political climate of America. Protests take place in the streets while certain characters are showcased. 

A violinist plays his instrument and watches the protests taking place outside of his apartment, a Pepsi can in his hand. A photographer sorts through her photographs before throwing them aside, grabbing her camera, and joining the protest. 

All the while, Kendall Jenner plays an oblivious, upper class model who is working a photoshoot as the events take place. Eventually, the violinist invites her to join the protest. She takes off her wig, wipes her makeup, and joins. 

A diverse cast of people from various races, cultural backgrounds, religions, gender identities, sexual orientations, etc. stand before a police force blocking the street. Kendall Jenner offers an officer a Pepsi, and the conflict between the groups seemingly ends.

This commercial was extremely problematic, because it oversimplified the struggles of the marginalized groups portrayed in the commercial. When considering the real life events that influenced this commercial, the ad comes across as tactless. Real people voicing their beliefs about real issues— like anti-racism, anti-police brutality, anti-Islamophobia, etc.— should not be a platform to sell a soft drink.

Pepsi has since apologized for the ad.

Ashley Madison

A controversial company in it of itself, Ashley Madison is famous for promoting infidelity. The online dating service targets people, most often men, who are already in committed marriages. The dating service is meant for married people who want to have an affair.

In 2015, two men ended their lives after the website was hacked, and information about their affairs was released.

Controversial Ashley Madison ad from wooplus.com

The ad above brought the issue of body shaming to the public eye. Not only is it promoting marriage betrayal, but it is also blaming a woman and her body shape for her husband's infidelity. 

Advertisements are notorious for negatively affecting women's self-esteem and self-image by strictly reinforcing impossible beauty standards, especially in terms of body shape. In a culture that is attempting to promote diverse body types, the general public considers this ad shameful and tasteless. 

This ad also over-sexualizes women, a major source of controversy in advertising. Hardee's was notorious for their scandalous commercials featuring women in bikinis sexually eating Hardee's foods. The commercials have since been pulled because of the controversy surrounding them.

Conclusion

Advertisers are responsible for the content they generate. They must be aware of the ethical dilemmas they face when producing content. 

Advertisers have an obligation to promote and uphold the reputation of the brand they are representing. Careless advertising is not tolerated by the public for which it is intended. Advertisers must closely analyze their ethical situations before producing, creating, and releasing content. 

The Ethical Dilemmas of Artificial Intelligence

Jacob Sherer
js413114@ohio.edu

By extension, advertising is a form of psychology. Think about it. The goal of psychologists and advertisers alike is to study the way the human mind works and develop an understanding of human behavior. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way marketers analyze vast amounts of complex information while introducing some troubling ethical concerns.

"Advertisers may soon know us better than we know ourselves. They'll understand more than just our demographics. They'll understand our most personal motivations and vulnerabilities. Worrisomely, the may elevate the art of persuasion to the science of behavior control." - Jason Jercinovic.

Trust is the key to successfully integrating AI into the field of advertising. As AI allows marketers to delve deeper into the psyche of their consumers than ever before. The above article also cites an excellent example of consumer targeting as a result of AI and moral obligations that go along with it. The example notes that most would agree that leveraging information acquired from AI to target a consumer interested in sports cars, but the ethical implications come in when additional information regarding the consumer is brought forth, such as, debt and a lack of impulse control.

Jercinovic states transparency "in which the consumer is more of a partner in his or her marketing rather than an unwitting target of it," is the ethical solution to this issue.

Daniel Newman, a contributor to The Huffington Post, also lists transparency as the key to ethically and efficiently integrating the usage of AI in the workplace.

In addition, Newman names "One Hundred Years of Artificial Intelligence" from Stanford as a framework for forming the basis of an ethical code regarding AI and highlights the need of two factors: oversight safeguards and standards for risk assessment.

However, AI does not come without risks. Facebook and Google are examples of AI can go wrong. The companies have recently been in the news for AI failures, such as racist ad message targeting and failure to pull down extremist content.

Another risk of the use of AI is that the information presented to a consumer could be too targeted, thus running the risk of creeping people out and therefore could lead to increased ad blocking and consumers increasing their computer privacy settings.

Returning to Jercinovic's take on the usage of AI, the entire article is incredibly fascinating and details what he feels are the appropriate steps that need to be taken as AI becomes more and more integrated into the field of advertising and he ends the article with a note for advertisers to understand and recognize the difference between what they can know, should know, and shouldn't know.

As of mid-2017, the first steps to creating a widespread, best practices guide have begun, with a committee of tech leaders gathering in August to discuss the ethics of AI usage. Hopefully the discussions will lead companies to make ethical decisions benefiting society as a whole.

An Era of Ad Blocking Technology

Molly Zunski
mz668015@ohio.edu

In an era of the battle between earned media and fraudulent advertising, the rise of ad blocking technology is more prominent than ever before.

Photo courtesy of https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/state-ad-blocking-statistics-from-around-world-adid-khan

Many of the top leaders of the advertisement industry can agree that ad fraud has become an overwhelming issue and must be stopped.  However, according to Alex Kantrowitz of AdAge.com, the act of fighting ad fraud costs money, and "just about every company in the ecosystem can benefit in some way from it."  This is, as Kantrowitz's headline puts it plainly, why so little has been done to stop ad fraud.

If the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, had it their way, the term "fraudulent advertising" simply would not be a part of an American consumer's vocabulary.  According to the FTC, the very foundation of advertising is to be "truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence."

The FTC promises to help consumers on whom cases of fraud have been perpetrated by filing actions in "federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams," as well as to prevent such perpetrators from scamming consumers in the future.

However, not many other platforms are as ready and willing to stop fraud as the FTC.

"Purging fraudulent impressions from the system would mean higher media prices and lower performance (though more accurate)," Kantrowitz writes.

This very issue gets on the nerves of the people who want to advertise the "right way." Media and advertisement companies have found more effective ways to purge sites of fraudulent ads over the years, but the processes are expensive.

Not only are the processes to purge ad fraud expensive, but the costs of sending advertisements out into the internet are also rather costly.  This is especially true of the advertisement costs wasted on bot traffic or nonhuman digital traffic.

"Ad blockers not only put a huge chunk of display advertising revenue at risk, but are a clear and present danger to the media's high hopes for sponsored content, which is now rendered all but invisible," writes Steve Rubel of AdAge.com.

Photo courtesy of http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/whats-being-done-rein-7-billion-ad-fraud-169743/

Ad blocking technology, used to repel ads, both fraudulent and not, has always been around, it just hasn't been quite as widely used in the past as it is today.

It is because of these ad blockers that ad publishers are in a rush to formulate new ways to get their ads out to consumers.  While they attempt to surpass the technologies consumers have in place to block any unwanted ads, the issues of "ad viewability and bot fraud" remain.

While consumers have found at-home methods of preventing their own viewing of ad fraud, digital media marketers and publishers must also find their own ways of preventing ad fraud from a production perspective.

Amy Bartle, the director of media and digital marketing for La Quinta Inns & Suites, says that the most effective tool in place to combat fraud is "third-party verification, preferably one that is more fact-based than probabilistic" in an article for adweek.com.

With such tools in place, both from an advertisement perspective and consumer perspective, hopefully the era of fraudulent advertising will come to a close sooner than expected.

Native Advertising: Is it Ethical?

Lauren Schumacker
ls242914@ohio.edu

Why are advertisements changing?

There are many online publications allowing different types of advertising from their sponsors that many journalists do not think is ethical. These new advertising techniques are emerging because of an increase in software that blocks consumers from seeing ads in order to decrease the amount of cellular data they are using. Therefore, normal advertisements are becoming less effective. In addition to this, many online publications are finding that their readers are simply clicking through advertisements, therefore making them less effective.

What are the new advertising techniques?

Advertisers have begun to get creative in order to have more success with their online advertising. A new technique called native advertising, creates an advertisement that looks as if it is a part of the webpage. For example, The Atlantic allowed a an advertisement about Scientology to run on their website. It looked as if this article was created by The Atlantic themselves, causing them to receive a lot of backlash.

Source: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2014/07/07/native-advertising-examples

Why is this a problem?

Although different companies are only wanting to get maximum views on their content, many journalists view these new advertising practices as deceptive and unethical. This example reflects poorly on The Atlantic and all members of the staff. It is difficult to keep a good relationship with advertisers who fund your publication, while also trying to maintain editorial independence and credibility to your audience.

Buzz Feed is arguably one of the worst offenders of this unethical advertising technique. This video explains how Buzz Feed has become so successful by using these deceptive ads in order to increase web page traffic, and trick their readers into viewing more advertising content than content.

Many editors are defending their publications by saying that the ads are marked, allowing the reader to tell the difference. However, it is clear that many consumers are unaware of these advertising techniques and are usually unable to differentiate between actual news produced by the publication, and advertisements that are angled to look like news stories.

I am a journalism student. Therefore I am aware of the various issues surrounding new forms of advertising. However, I refuse to believe that the small gray words underneath a headline that read, "sponsored" are enough to allow the common reader to understand that the article they are reading is not content produced by the original website and is intended to persuade them. This is deceptive and this is wrong.

Let's look at the numbers

According to Sharethrough.com, a company that helps businesses build their presence through native advertising, consumers looked at advertisements 2% more than actual editorial content posted by the publisher, and they stayed on these web pages for longer lengths of time.

Native ads have created an 18% increase in purchases when companies adapted this new technique over the original banner ads that most consumers overlooked.

In fact, 25% more consumers viewed the native ads than the banner ads.

If readers do not want to pay for news, and advertisers are no longer gaining from regular online advertisements because of new advertisement blocking software, then how should publications fund their business? Native advertising is deceptive, but it is what many publications are forced to allow in order to be successful. I look forward to seeing what advertisers will come up with next if consumers eventually begin to see and overlook these new advertising techniques as well.

Decision Making In Ads and the Golden Rule

Elizabeth Raber
er198613@ohio.edu

Source: linkedin.com

Advertising, when used to its full potential with honest intentions, is good in nature. It tells an audience about new products and promotions—ultimately satisfying a customers wants or needs. Advertising also serves an important role in funding newspapers, websites, television and news outlets. 

But what happens when advertisers don't tell the truth? What happens when marketers embellish products? What happens when a PR firm spins the truth until there is little to no fact?

Being honest and transparent with an ad is one of the most important things a brand can do, because if not, it tarnishes the brand by lying to its consumers and acting with poor ethical practices. Ethical ad dilemmas can happen in an array of situations. One for example is the dishonesty with food advertising. Is it important for McDonalds to advertise a sale on the Big Mac? Sure. Is it important to use a blow torch, a branding iron and some shoe polish to make the food look better in an advertisement than what you get at the drive-thru? I don't think so. 

Source: YouTube.com

In today's advertising climate, I think companies are generally getting better about being more honest and ethical in their campaigns. For example, companies are improving their honest messaging instead of hiding the fact that smoking is bad for you in the 1950's and 60's. But there are still companies that try to embellish their products. For example, POM just recently finish a case about false advertising with the FTC about falsely claiming pomegranate juice improves heart decease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction. 

So how can companies try and stay more honest in their advertising? Be honest. Have the studies to back your claims up, present the product as it's presented in your stores and be transparent with what goes into the ad.

The Federal Trade Commission has a whole pledge to keep deceptive advertising out of the lives of people who consume the media. 2017 is currently the home of 22 cases of fraud and deception. 

What new professionals need to know: Treat your audience how you would want to be treated. 

The Golden Rule: Not only do you have your clients credibility on the line, you also have to realize where your ethics lie. Making immoral decisions could cost you your job and reputation. 

Casting has to be honest. Product photography has to be honest. Messaging has to be honest. Product placement has to be honest. 

The final step to understanding the effects of your ad: run focus groups and conduct research. Perspective is important to think about when you make a campaign—15% of people will find something objectionable in an ad. 

At the end of the day, advertisements should enhance your credibility, not destroy it. Advertisements should serve the purpose of filling a want or need, not altering the perception of your company because you didn't weigh all the possibilities of misconception. Consumers of the media are just as smart as the professionals who make the commercials—don't try and trick the people who can break your reputation. 

Online advertising lacks accountability

Haley Rischar
hr443214@ohio.edu

Digital advertising curtosy of Adweek

In a digital age where the internet challenges the rules of multiple media platforms, the advertising profession is now dedicating more of its time to dealing with ethical choices... or so we hope.

Large companies have the opportunity to instill million-dollar ads directed at millions of people, where smaller companies with a small online audience are held accountable by a much smaller community. According to Alex Kantrowitz's "Digital ad fraud is rampant. Here's why so little has been done about it", purging fraudulent impressions from the system would mean higher media prices and lower performance.

"Fraud pumps up publishers' traffic, exchanges get paid a percentage for trading it, buying platforms' performance looks better because of it, and agencies can bring those great results to clients," he said.

Because of this, there is little incentive to fright the fraud problem advertising faces today. Brands have moved on to different forms of advertising such as "native ads" and social media.

Native advertising is a form of paid media where the ad experience follows the natural form and function of the user experience in which it is placed. Their form matches the visual design go the experience they live within, and look and feel like natural content. To function properly, the ads must behave consistently with the native user experience, and function just like natural content.

Social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr, as well as publishers such as Time Inc, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and USA Today, have all introduced this new type of advertising to their feeds.

This sponsored content, sometimes referred to as advertorials, have gained attention from 25% more consumers, are looked at 2% more than editorial content, and register an 18% higher lift in purchase intent than banner ads.

With this new type of advertising comes cons. Some viewers may find this content dishonest and deceptive. Countless YouTube accounts have been attacked by fans for using sponsored videos or paid product halls. Advertorial content is not classified as real content, making it a dangerous marketing strategy.

Due to these accountability issues the digital advertising industry is facing, the the transparency conversation has taken a negative direction. With ad fraud, view ability and brand safety a top focus in the industry, addressing the lack of transparency is expected.

More brands must understand the transparency issues at play and demand continued improvements and reporting to ensure the highest efficiencies are being driven," said a Huffington Post article. "After all, without such reporting, brands are unable to verify ad performance and truly understand the impact of their ad spend."

To improve digital advertising's reputation, collaborations such as IAB Tech Lab's Open Measurement Working Group has proposed an open source mobile verification SDK to provide consistent and accurate measurement of advertising performance within the app. This aims to help marketers avoid dubious sellers in the marketplace, saving marketers the time-consuming task of contacting publishers directly to verify supply side platforms.

"As technology gives us the means to interact ember more individually with consumers, the ethics of those interactions become ever more personal," said Chris Moore from Brains for Rent. "Its not about the herd anymore, and you are not a sheep. It's about you. And the choices you make. Now, more than ever, Ethics is personal."

Advertising is our Biggest Friend and our Enemy

Nick A. Ursini
nu778414@ohio.edu

Advertisements are almost as unavoidable as stopping at a red light when you are driving. Ads provide the chance for companies to showcase their products, but those advertisements are ever-changing and the use of technology has changed consumer's opinions on advertisements. Marketing is a big part of a company, but with the ethical decision making being more about making money other than building your brand and gaining customer loyalty. So where did it all change?

{Photo by:www.bravegirlswant.com}

Ethical Decision-Making:
It is never easy telling the truth. In certain situations bending the truth or telling lies seems to be the better option. However when trying to sell your product or show your customers how well your product is, why lie when the after effect can be costly? In the end what it comes down to is your morals and ethics. And what do you prefer, money or loyalty?"Let's start with truth in advertising. But any philosophy major can tell you, there's Truth... and then there's Truth" (Ogilvy and Mather CEO, Pg.1). I'm not saying it is easy to do sometimes, but it is the right thing to do. Your consumers need to know the truth.

Now and Their Effects:
Technological advances have carried the advertising business for years now. Television ads that cost millions of dollars, ads in newspapers, magazines, a website you name it they are everywhere. But, can they be trusted as pure and true? Truthfully, the reason so little has been done is because it costs money to try and find the frauds. 

Manipulation and Exposure to false ads are two of the biggest reasons why false advertising has not been stopped. We have heard the expression, "You can't believe everything you read or see on the internet." But just how many viewers actually believe the advertisements they see?

Statistics:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the biggest organization protecting American viewers. " When the FTC finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrates scams in the future; freeze their assets and get compensation for victims" (FTC News and Events, Pg.1).

• The leading consumer complaint as of 2015 was debt collection at 29 percent, followed by Identity theft and 16 percent and imposter scams at 11 percent.
• Health Care and Pharmaceutical led the enforcement by action with 26 percent.
• 844, 036 consumers received redress totaling over $22.3 million dollars.

{All statistics from: www.ftc.gov/node}

Takeaways:
So after seeing the statistics and the numerous cases of fraudulent advertising, manipulation, and overexposure, what are your thoughts on advertising? Don't get me wrong, I think marketing and advertising are what makes a company a great company. They can showcase their products to try and branch out to get new customers, but also maintain their level of commitment to current customers. But somewhere recently the goal of advertising has changed. The ads can be manipulated to show their product is better than it really is, it can say things about it that are partially true, but not completely. As consumers, we thought we could trust these companies. The real questions to be asking while looking at a product. Do companies try and earn our trust with their products, or are they just trying to line their pockets? Whatever it may be, advertising is in a big hole.

A Sneakier Way To Advertise

Alyssa Vaccariello
av689614@ohio.edu

It's nothing new that we are surrounded by advertisements from every direction. Whether it be coming at us from storefronts, magazines, commercials or our smartphones, we simply can't escape advertising. Most of the time, we can recognize advertisements and are aware we're being targeted by sponsored content. However, a sneakier approach is oftentimes used on the world's largest social platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. This is referred to as native advertising. Native advertising is a "form of paid media where the ad experience follows the natural form and function of the user experience in which it was placed." Native advertising is being created and broadcasted on popular sources such as Buzzfeed, Forbes, The Atlantic and The New Yorker. If done properly, this type of content can benefit both the advertiser and the reader. In some cases, however, it could also be potentially dangerous to journalism.

Source: http://www.bandt.com.au/media/news-com-au-reimagines-native-advertising-new-targeted-model

How can native advertising be beneficial?
In many cases, native advertising can be extremely entertaining or informational to the reader. An article promoted by Dove could headline, "11 Skin-Care Routines to Reduce Wrinkles" and contain beneficial information that the reader wants to know, while also being relevant to the brand sponsoring it. Even more-so, if the reader finds the article on Buzzfeed, or another outlet where they aren't looking for hard-hitting news, they'd be more inclined to be interested and drawn in by in the headline. Native ads are usually entertaining, but can also be genuinely good displays of journalism.  According to an article on Hubspot, The New York Times covered an article titled "Women Inmates: Separate But Not Equal," that was paid for by Netflix to promote Orange is the New Black. The article itself was promotional, but also contained informative, well-produced content.

How can native advertising be dangerous?
There are multiple potential risks associated with native advertising. The publishers are at risk. By having too much sponsored content within your publication, it could take away that publication's credibility. These ads can strike uncertainty into the readers, leaving them wondering whose content they are even reading, and if that content is of quality value. Readers want to read from sources they trust, and reading an article only to discover it was an advertisement can make many people feel taken advantage of and lied to. As a brand or a publisher, you don't want to make your consumer feel that way.

How can advertisers and publishers improve native ads?
Publishers can work to collaborate with advertisers' needs while maintaining their readers' trust. First of all, they can ask advertisers to clearly communicate their objectives, so they can work as a team to accomplish them in a way that makes both of them happy. Publishers can provide an ad experience that is seamless, matching the tone and format of the rest of the platform to engage readers. Publishers should insure that the content being presented is relevant to what the readers are interested in. Lastly, native advertising should be labeled to avoid tricking the audience.

The Constant Struggle Between Editorial and Advertising

Kendall Schmucker
ks473114@ohio.edu

Sponsored content and native advertising are easy ways for publications to make money. With this content, organizations can pay to have their articles in publications: a statement that does not seem to be such a problem until one realizes that it would be easy to make the pieces appear as if they were part of the publication.

Native advertising is particularly interesting because it does not look like an ad. Because the clickthrough rate on digital advertisements dropped off astronomically, advertisers had to find a new way to reach audiences. This type of advertising is meant to convince people through narrative of the usefulness of whatever their company is selling. Although this may seem ethically fine from the view of the advertisers, from a journalist's perspective, it may be misleading readers if not properly done.

Source: http://nativeadvertising.com/monetization-aint-easy-14-predictions-for-native-advertising-in-2016/

Publications need to make sure that there is a distinct difference between their content and the content provided by the company paying for the advertisement.

Journalism has been in a constant struggle with how to maintain editorial independence while keeping a positive relationship with their advertisers. As early journalists began developing their own codes of ethics, the "separation of church and state" became a higher priority. This separation is referring to the separation between advertising and editorial departments.

In a 2017 article by Ava Sirrah titled The Blurring Line Between Editorial and Native Ads at the New York Times, the author suggests that the solution may lie in the transparency of the publication.

"Currently, no rule or policy exists that require news outlets to disclose that they have received x dollars from y client to produce z advertising placement(s). It's important to note here that disclosing what is and is not funded by an advertiser would not slow down the production of such campaigns, partnerships, native ads – whatever the news outlet wants to call it."

However, some studies point toward native advertisements being beneficial to advertisers while not harming the publication. In a study by the University of Georgia, San Diego State University, and Syracuse University, it was found that the people's perception of the company publishing the advertisement was not affected, even when when they knew what they were looking at was an advertisement.

"Of the 55 respondents who knew it was an advertisement, the research indicated the relationship a consumer had with an organization was not affected when they knew the advertisement was sponsored by a brand."

These ways of reaching consumers may be questionable, but it depends more on the content of the messages than the presence of them. If the publication is making sure to make it evident to consumers that what they are reading is sponsored content, then there is no problem with them making a profit from it.

While native advertising and sponsored content can be seen as a negative, it may be a necessary evil to keep the journalism field alive. With the constant changes in how we publish content in the digital world, companies need to be able to make money so that they can continue to do so. These new ways of reaching consumers may be just beginning.

Let's Talk About Ads

Brianna Reid
br536013@ohio.edu

Advertising is king in this digital era. Advertisements literally surround us and motivate everything that we engage in. Our favorite tv networks are in part supported by ads. Our sports teams are supported by ad/sponsor money. Our favorite actors participate in ads and regularly promote brands. Our society revolves around advertisements. You would think we would be used to it now.

We are not, clearly!

I think it is safe to say that most people hate ads. It is probably not all ads, though some can be funny or useful but a large majority are repetitive, unwanted, and a nuisance. Yes, there are various kinds of ads and various mediums, but to some degree, the feeling pertains to all of them. There was a survey done to identify the most unwanted kind of ad; please look at the results. Why are Ads Annoying

In case you did not look at the survey, the results revealed that the most annoying ads are the ones online. Of course! Those sneaky little companies trying to invade on our computer time. The dislike has grown even more now, though, because they have taken it upon themselves to infringe advertisements on our social media. Our place of release and leisure. Our place to connect with friends. Have they no shame.

I guess from company's perspective it does make sense. We spend so much time on social media that they want to capitalize on that. Every other day, I think I see an article talking about the extreme popularity and success of these ads. Social Media Ads Will Explode  Maybe I can admit I have found a useful ad here and there on Facebook or Instagram, but more often than not I think I have just been annoyed. So annoyed, that I felt like I was looking at a screen like this.

 

I could be slightly exaggerating, but you get the idea. Ads are everywhere and for everything. Well known companies and little startups alike grace my timelines on a regular. I used to not mind them, but I have reached the point to where I am relentless with my block button. I block ads that might even peak my interest just because I know if I dare accept the one, ten more just like it will find their way onto my screen.

I can admit that sometimes the social media ads can be a plus. Knowing their consumers' habits and preferences is part of the process and necessary to be a good business. In this aspect, I understand. I just think there should be some limitations.

I do not think small, no name ads should be popping up regularly on my timeline. You have no established base and I am not interested in you. Sometimes these ads could even be fake. It's too easy to achieve space sometimes.

Another limit could be that only so many ads can pop up in one viewing session. As a consumer, I know what I want and I am well aware of how to get it. If I decide I want to look for a product then I will. Until that time, I need my space from all the additional ads. I would hate for it to get to the point that I get clicker happy and press block before I even read the print. They need to be more considerate of my time and space! The goal is to avoid excess, irrelevant, or unsolicited ads.