|
|
|
|
|
|
by mrseb
3945 days ago
|
|
|
Heya. I'm the editor of Ars Technica UK, where this story was originally published. It's not native advertising. The author just really likes the 911. Ars doesn't do native advertising/advertorial. We do some sponsored stuff, but those posts are clearly marked. |
|
|
Is there somewhere on Ars' website where I can read the "Ars doesn't do native advertising/advertorial" policy?
As a jaded, cynical reader, the trap I fall into is that if content clearly marks itself as an advertorial, I know what I'm dealing with and can take it with the appropriate grains of salt. On the other hand, if content that seems advertorial comes from a site I normally trust, but with no markings at all, I'm left wondering if it's a benign "I just really love this thing and wanted to write about it", or if it's a really clever native ad invading another space that used to be on the other side of the wall.
What I'd love to see from Ars and other responsible journalistic outlets is a) a policy about native advertising that's easy to find and b) at the editor's discretion, if there's an article that may seem particularly advertorial-ish, a pre-emptive disclaimer that says "Hey, even if this seems like native advertising, it isn't. Here's a link to our general advertorial policy, and here's a link to the author personally gushing about how much he or she loves the Porsche 911 and talking about why they wrote this article."
And yes, I know that it sucks that you guys, as responsible journalists, have to bear the negative externality of irresponsible journalists publishing "18 insane things you wouldn't think the Toyota Tacoma could do...#7 will blow your mind".