By now, we all know what native advertising is — paid content that follows the general style and voice of the platform upon which it appears. Because native advertising blends in so organically with its surroundings in digital publishing, this form of advertising is — to its critics — sneaky and hard to spot.
Today, three out of four publishers offer some form of native advertising on their sites, and 90% of those yet to dip their toes into native advertising’s waters plan to do so in the very near future.
It goes without saying that many consumers take issue with these ads, wondering “am I clicking on a story or an ad?” And they’re not alone. Here are some high-profile articles by native ad haters (or at least critics) who don’t hesitate to express their dislike and, in some cases, utter disdain for the practice.
Kirk Cheyfitz of Content Marketing Institute discusses how the FTC is monitoring native advertising and emphasizes the unnerving degree of deception allowed in media today.
This article by Adam Kleinberg of Advertising Age asks the question: “Who is holding advertisers accountable for the quality of their ads?”
Lara O’Reilly of Marketing Week believes that native advertising is pure trickery. Publishers, she argues, need to provide some sort of labelling for readers.
Kate Abnett of Not Just A Label sheds light on how the fashion industry is starting to act like media companies by producing content and advertisements. Native advertising is making its way into magazines and accounting for about as much as the editorial content in them. Because of this, native advertising is beginning to dictate the content of the magazines.
The Conversation produced a 5 part series on native advertising. In the series they discuss credibility, regulation, the invasive nature of this form of advertising, and much more.