Native advertising has really picked up steam in recent years, and that's partly due to advertisers becoming more creative. When they realize that their ads can flow better on a page when it looks more like an article, ethical issues can arise.
In Anne Willet's article from the PRSA website, she notes that there should be a set of guidelines, including disclosure, allowing for reader comments on websites and keeping the content current. This disclosure is to let the readers/viewers know that an ad is not a part of the publication.
Of course, rules are made to be broken, and if they are not broken, they are worked around. One of the most notorious social media platforms for the misinformed right now is Facebook. With their advertisements, they will have a small indicator at the bottom of the ad that it is sponsored, but many people will not see that and think that this ad is directly from Facebook.
Some ads, while not always deliberate, will be placed in a perfect way so it seems they are interacting with an article above or below it. This can lead the reader to think that the advertisements are affiliated with the publication, and these ethical concerns are dealt with so much more with this rise of native advertising.
Photo Credit: rhetorik.ch
Since advertisers are working in the social media sphere now, it is argued they have an ethical obligation to update the status of their ads and answer all questions that are needed. This suggestion is also made by the PRSA article. It makes sense, considering that an ad can have a different message in an hour, depending on news developments. In a way, ads are their own form of news, and this recent development blurs the lines even more.
Many news organizations want to combat this issue of false ad interpretation, and who can blame them? There can be PR nightmares that arise from campaign ads that go directly along with an article about a candidate, for example, bringing the publication's political stance into question.
So how can publications combat these ethical concerns? For one, it's about transparency. It's the responsibility of the company to make sure their intentions are clear, and they need to communicate that to the public. It's also about content regulation. With digital print, there are many new and innovative ways to let your readers know what is affiliated with the publication and what is not. This could be put within the ad, or it could be indicated somewhere in bold text in an article.
The issue of native advertising will continue to rock the news world as online media keeps developing. Advertising and public relations agencies now, more than ever, have a responsibility to keep their brands in check and ensure the right message is being communicated to the public.
Native advertising is such an interesting concept. I always struggle between the two ends of the spectrum as a consumer but also as someone interested in working in advertising. First, I often wonder when it comes to the line of unethical behavior, how much responsibility of awareness do we place on the reader. After all, the method of native advertising is a clever way to make ads less disruptive to encourage a viewer to continuing reading. Consumers should form better habits of researching where the information they are receiving is coming from. However, it also does seems like a breach of trust and for that reason I definitely agree there should be strict guidelines for those who resort to this form of advertising such as complete transparency.
ReplyDelete