Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
Search for native advertising on the Guardian and you'll likely find this article.
The irony is almost unbearable. As Doug Kessler pointed out at FODM 2014 (all credit goes to Doug), he didn't find the Guardian's point of view on native advertising. He found this article in a paid-for position.
What does this mean for publishing and advertising? Keep reading and you'll find my rules for succeeding with native advertising.
Well, what it means in Doug's eyes is that the reader will eventually revolt.
This one of Doug's key trends in content marketing at the moment. The blurring of ads and content, the blurring of motivation behind a celebrity tweet, and the blurring of brand posts with your friends' in the Facebook newsfeed.
Are publishers selling trust and selling it too cheaply?
Is there a solution?
Publishers could of course take the radical approach of increasing the price of native inventory and its visibility, whilst decreasing its frequency. The bottom line is that readers have to be absolutely clear this is content that should not be judged by the same standards as the rest of the publication. That's not to say it shouldn't hit that standard.
The BuzzFeed model of effectively creating an agency in-house to produce native advertising with the same values as BuzzFeed content has to be the approach taken. In effect, this means that the content is no longer advertising (if advertising is defined as content with no artistic merit).
This Purina video we've featured before is the perfect BuzzFeed example.
The Telegraph has been doing similar stuff with video advertising.
See the excellent example below about the making of a Steinway Piano that was created in-house.
This video was hosted in the Telegraph's luxury design section. I've copied the whole page at the bottom of this post, so you can see how it's done (click through). The design of this part of the Telegraph differs from the other sections and this is something publishers should take on board when considering native. If you make the site feel different enough in sections where native advertising is accepted, the reader may be less confused or disappointed. Perhaps the Guardian doesn't quite achieve this?
The point here is also that the Telegraph Steinway article that accompanies this video is fairly factual, though also with a certain style. When it comes to fashion and design, native is easier than, for example, giving opinions on the future of business (traditionally a beat for senior journos and an area that shouldn't be merely dabbled in).
The answer lies in defining native advertising for your publication
This is what it comes down to. What is acceptable for you and your readers? Be stringent, protect your journalists, look for other revenue streams. It's hard to turn down ad bucks, but more and more will start to do it.
If we look at the fashion industry and a magazine like Vogue, its adverts aren't what we would call native, but we should do. They are as much content to readers as the other parts of the magazine. Vogue is comfortable with this relationship, and so it should be.
Some rules I've made up
- Stick with specific formats e.g. the subheaded short article, as below in the Telegraph.
- Steer clear of opinions.
- Manage it in-house.
- Use your own writers and editors, with raw material and research from the brand.
- Collaboration is key.
- Don't think of it as an easy buck, more good money for good work.
- Sell native advertising to brands that 'get' publishing.
And if you're a brand, Doug suggests, you may as well get on board now to make the most of this very valuable inventory before reader scepticism overrides.
Look out for Econsultancy's Native Advertising Best Practice Guide, due for publication soon.