Here in the US, the media and advertising circus surrounding the presidential election that's still a year away is already in full swing. It grows noisier and less substantive with each election, as unfettered contributions from individuals and corporations help feed attack advertising, and politicians exploit the desperate media practice of driving up audience numbers by reiterating candidates' most extreme tweets and pronouncements.
Worse – at a time when social media and mobile have heightened self absorption and shrunk attention spans, and many people apparently confuse a candidate's ability to generate exposure with having credibility – media outlets with recognisable brands and huge reach, like BuzzFeed, are starting to accept "native" advertising from politicians. So now we're OK with enabling candidates who, rather than simply submit an editorial opinion column or buy a clearly identified ad, are looking for a more effective format that's perfect for obfuscating their true agendas, getting third parties to extol their virtues without disclosure, and creating an illusion of hard-won experience and knowledge?
According to Columbia Journalism Review, "newsrooms across the [US] are already in the business of selling native ads for advocacy and lobbying groups," and some with substantially more weighty news cred than BuzzFeed, including Politico and The Hill, are also considering running native advertising for politicians. "In an age when the power of TV and online display ads is plummeting, ads on a site like BuzzFeed could reach an untold number of young voters," points out CJR. The article adds that while BuzzFeed's sponsored content "remains marked as such on social media websites, the notice does not jump off the screen… a rarely-discussed problem inherent to social media shares [is that] the source of a piece of content can be masked or obscured as it flies across the social web."
But let's put aside quibbles about running paid propaganda masquerading as editorial when national leadership is at stake. How do we feel about letting corporations and organisations use trusted legacy media brands in stealth fashion to win children over to their agendas? I'm talking now about activities that go beyond junk food brands using cute characters and "gamified" websites and apps to subliminally sell junk food and candy (egregious as that is).
Beyond the pale?
In October, a month after News Corp acquired 73% of the National Geographic Society's media assets (the other 27% is still owned by the historically not-for-profit Society), National Geographic and Bayer CropScience – the agricultural unit of chemicals and pharmaceuticals giant Bayer AG – jointly launched an interactive game on NG's "Education" website. The game's purpose, said the release, is to "educate students" about the "modern technologies" available to farmers to overcome pests, disease and weather challenges. Now, given that the Society's philanthropic mission (as touted on the NG site) include "promotion of environmental and historic conservation" – and given CropScience's record of confrontations with governments around the world over instances of human and environmental collateral damage resulting from toxic chemicals and genetically engineered seeds – some might see an ethical conflict in NG's "partnering" with this company. But regardless of the actual agenda being pushed – if it were a game with anti-GMO or anti-pesticides messaging, for example – it just doesn't seem ethical to use NG's credibility for stealth messaging aimed at kids.
Meanwhile, major magazine and other traditional media brands are rushing to have their editorial content distributed in Apple News, Facebook Instant Articles, Twitter's Moments and similar channels. Never mind that, as Josh Constine pointed out in TechCrunch, these platforms that are turning publishers into "ghostwriters" often work against users reading and interacting with a magazine brand on its own channels. They also couldn't care less about publishers making money, through advertising or otherwise. Apple – which got publishers to spend untold millions on developing magazine apps for Apple Newsstand, then provided neither visibility nor adequate platform maintenance – is now actually sometimes generating warning messages when users tap on ads in its new mobile News app. The message warns that if they click on the ad, they'll leave News, and forces them to choose between clicking either "View Ad" or "Don't View".
What does this have to do with native advertising? In July, Digiday ran an opinion piece by Emma Geary, digital creative solutions manager at British Vogue, which was remarkable for its candour. Her premise: "By blocking standard display ads on the mobile web by the end of 2015 [through a feature within the latest iOS 9 Safari update], Apple is strong-arming publishers into examining revenue models that diverge from the traditional banner-ad business. This is creating an industry shift by stoking the need for something that doesn’t exist today: a sophisticated model of native advertising."
I certainly wouldn't argue her point about Apple "strong-arming" publishers. And sadly, it appears that even the biggest magazine publishers agree with her assessment that "all media must adapt" to the "omnipotent" Apple, given its Safari browser's 42% share of global mobile usage.
Still, I hope that I wasn't totally alone in feeling a chill as she elaborated on the "sophisticated" native advertising approach that she urges publishers to adopt. I recommend a full read of her column, if only to get a full appreciation of how far we've come in throwing off the commercially limiting "chains" of editorial integrity.
For now, I leave you with an excerpt: "True editorial assimilation [of advertisers' products and content] calls the ethics of disclosure into question, but if the content is a natural platform fit, devised, written and promoted by the editorial team and resonates so deeply that the reader can barely tell it’s paid for, does disclosure even matter? The inherent native paradox is that brands desire engagement and endorsement, but these are often best achieved by stripping overt branding from the content. In its most sophisticated form, native is synonymous with subtle product placement."
