kv266915@ohio.edu
Being able to make a clear distinction between news content and advertisements is an aspect of news websites that is becoming more and more difficult to define with the rise of "native advertising." With this fairly new concept, marketing content is made to look like the articles on websites, and often uses vague or misleading wording to make it a challenge for readers to recognize the difference. As explained in this LA Times column from 2016, the main contrast is that "the goal of journalism is to inform and enlighten," but advertising aims "to influence your thinking and behavior," usually for the purpose of selling a product.
But how does this affect the trust that readers place in media organizations? According to Mediashift, this kind of advertising "jeopardizes the editorial independence of newsrooms as journalists become aware of what advertisers want them to discuss." And if this content is influence by an outside company or organization, then news sites need to make the difference between sponsored content and their own more clear, not less.
Blurring the Line Has Become a Trend
The following graph portrays the projected spending on "native advertising" around the world, comparing 2015 spending to that of 2018.
 |
| Photo courtesy of statista.com |
Why is "native advertising" becoming so popular? One significant reason is the money that comes from it. If advertisers want content to look like news, and will pay more for it, then struggling newsrooms will be much more easily influenced to do so. This means the media companies that are suffering the most financially could be the most influenced, and that is usually smaller, more localized news sources, which also happen to be the more trusted sources of content among audiences.
"Native advertising" can effect how media organizations cover certain brands that sponsor them. If a newsroom is being largely supported by the money of an outside source, this will create a bias when it comes to stories about that brand. And with the fading line between types of content, any potential biases can become hidden to audiences.
Using Labels
Clearly portraying to audiences what is advertising is not always clear on social media websites and apps either. According the the LA Times, Facebook only uses "small gray print to say, ambiguously, 'sponsored,'" while Twitter just says "promoted." I have noticed this in my experience with using Twitter, and have often read this branded content seriously before recognizing the easily-overlooked "label."
Even the most respected organizations have to be careful with this new trend. For example, when The New York Times began, according to NiemanLab, "partnering with Samsung, which gave the Times the equipment to produce" videos for a 360-degree video series. But labeling the two companies as "partners" could also be seen as misleading to readers, especially with Samsung giving the newsroom equipment for a project, promoting itself in the process.
The Audience's Responsibility
Ultimately, readers need to be more careful in how they view the content on news sites in order to avoid being mislead. If audiences can be trained and educated on media literacy, then the trend may begin to slow down. If advertisers do not see the amount of profit coming from "native advertising" that they do now, then they will begin pushing for more lucrative methods of media marketing. Pushing for clearer labels on content could be a start for this, as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment