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.