The Rotten Apple

Kate Schroeder
ks460910@ohio.edu

Every time I flip through a magazine at home or scroll through a webpage on the latest celebrity gossip (my guilty pleasure), I always come across sponsored advertisements. The native ads always get me; they draw me in. One minute I'm reading about 10 cute looks to stay warm this winter and on the next page, a spread of fashionable winter coats. However, in a front small as a gain of sand, those cute coats are part of some department store ad. I feel like I was betrayed and suddenly those adorable coats turn into to ugly scraps of fabric.

A look at the first Instagram sponsored advertisements.
Courtesy of cnn.com

What is even scarier is native advertisements surround us everywhere. I come across them daily on Twitter and Facebook, but now they are even making their way onto my Instagram feed. What's even more frustrating is that they are not as clear as we would hope them to be. 

According to the American Society of Magazine Editors, magazines “should not use type fonts and graphics resembling those used for editorial content and should be visually separated from editorial content." However, this is not the case. There are plenty of sponsored advertisements in magazines and in digital media that blend in almost seamlessly, tricking the reader into thinking the content is more believable instead of just another ad.

This kind of practice in the advertising and public relations world is disturbing to me as a budding strategic communications professional. Although running sponsored content can be economically justified, I do not think it is a fair practice to use to make a few extra dollars and a get pat on the back from your client. Tricking your audience into thinking your content is genuine is not ethically viable unless it is clearly labeled as sponsored or done in the most professional manner.

What was most surprising to me while learning new knowledge about the world of native advertisements was I discovered some previously trusted sources were actually sponsored publications. According to the article, "Story Ads May Be Journalisms New Peril," “Forbes’s BrandVoice allows advertisers to produce editorial products that reflect their best efforts to engage audiences. The content is clearly labeled advertising, but has the familiar headline, art and text configuration of an editorial work.”

Although material may be clearly labeled as advertising, every day people do not take a close look when they are searching the Internet. The advertisement label is not as attracting as the catchy headline or vibrant picture which we all know as journalists draws the reader in first. Even though we can make journalistic justifications for running such ads, I personally believe we know deep down it is just lazy journalism. As public relations professionals, why would we want to risk a client's publication and our reputation to our audience by deceiving them through sponsored advertisements?

So, in retrospect, I agree with Joe McCambley in the article, "Story Ads May Be Journalism's New Peril." With the opportunities and freedom sponsored advertisements give to publishers it is to easy to abuse that power. If we are not careful how, what, when, where and why native advertisements are being used, then people will stop trusting the media as an acceptable source for information. Even if there are credible news organizations out there, one bad apple can spoil the whole bushel.

Agressive Advertising Is Like a Used Car Salesman

Rachel Sharkey

rs783310@ohio.edu

Aggressive advertising is like the obnoxious used car salesman. It is in-your-face, absurd and leaves the smell of stale cologne lingering in the air. Okay, so maybe the last one is a stretch, but with advertisements now taking the road toward “sponsored content,” advertising seems to be in sync with our everyday media consumption.

Photo Credit: CurbsideClassic.com

Mike Orren, a former news publisher who is now president of Speakeasy, was quoted in an article by Poynter describing content marketing “to newbies" as  "advertorial without all the ‘me, me, me.’"  

But the issue with this new trend in advertising is the level of transparency used by companies taking advantage of sponsored content. Although it is (hopefully) universally accepted that the content should be labeled as sponsored to inform the audience, it leaves a lot to the imagination of the readers. Should we publish the extent to which the company advertising had their hands in the content? In the article referencing Mike Orren by Poynter, the author poses whether the following questions should be published:

“Did the sponsors write it themselves? Did you write it, but they reviewed it before publishing? Or did they have no control and just want to associate their brand with the content?”

I think that it is absolutely necessary to inform the public of the motives behind the content we serve them. It is rare to find a code of ethics in the journalism and media world that lacks a statement referencing our duty to inform the public to the best of our knowledge. We would be doing a disservice to ourselves and our audience if we did not reveal the reasons behind publishing the content we publish.

Photo Credit: PaidContent.org 

Ann Willets of PRSA posted an article titled "The ethics of branded content," where she references Edelman’s guidelines concerning branded content behavior. The second guideline asks publishers to “Allow for real reader comments, like those found on news and opinion pieces. Don’t edit or remove the negative ones only because someone bought and paid for the content.”

Allowing reader comments provides an even playing field for audience perception. However I do not think it is enough.

 Imagine you are reading an article in your local newspaper. You think you’re reading a witty article on the benefits of watching reality television, and you decide to re-post it on your Facebook. You later find it was supported and written by MTV. Would you be bothered at the fact you promoted a network unintentionally? If you knew it was supported by MTV, would that be enough? Or would you feel better knowing they wrote the article themselves before you published it? These questions seem silly, but when they could cost a company its reputation, the impact of their answers can speak volumes.