In Marshall McLuhan’s landmark work The Medium Is the Massage (it was a printer’s typo he liked so much he stuck with it), the legendary media guru noted that “Real news is bad news – bad news about somebody, or bad news for somebody.”
Enter the latest reports about native advertising, which are bad news for just about everybody – journalists, publishers, and consumers.
Start with . . .
Bad News for Journalists
The hardtracking staff has chronicled multiple instances of publications shanghaiing editorial staffs into creating what’s often called “brand journalism.” But Greg Dool’s piece in Folio reveals just how rampant the practice has become.
Majority of Publishers Use Their Own Editorial Staffs to Produce Native Ads
Native advertising is only the latest new skill set taken on by editors in the digital age.
So, you’re a reporter. Can you code?
Just exactly what it means to be a magazine journalist in the 21st century is a question that seems to be posed quite often in this industry, and no two answers are generally the same. Regardless of who you ask though, one universal truth permeates: you need to wear a lot of hats . . .
Journalists need to be tech-savvy, capable of thinking across platforms, well-versed in social media and video editing, with the ability to fact check and copy edit on the fly.
Now, add to the list native advertising production.
A study from FIPP and the Native Advertising Institute found that over two-thirds of magazine publishers employ their own editorial staffs to produce native ads.
Drive us nuts graf:
When asked to name what they considered the biggest threat to native advertising, respondents cited a “lack of seperation [sic] of the editorial and the commercial side” as the number one concern.
The “lack of seperation” is the whole point of native advertising, which is to create marketing material that masquerades as editorial content. So that leads to this: “11 percent of respondents to the survey say they don’t label native advertising, although another 24 percent report marking native ads with only ‘a different look and feel.’”
In other words, ads in sheep’s clothing.
Problem is, marketers are having trouble counting those sheep. Which is . . .
Bad News for Publishers
From Max Willens at Digiday . . .
Read the rest at Sneak Adtack.