[ryanpardieck]

If native advertising is nothing more than brands attaching their names to articles, why don't these publications simply implement a way to buy ads on specific articles, or on articles with certain very specific subjects? As in something like, "Whenever you run an article whose main subject is adult ADHD, we will pay a premium to occupy all of the available ad placements on that article."

That's what I've never understood about native advertising. If it's as pure as its proponents say, why is it even needed? Why does a print magazine need a "native" article when they could sell a massive, full-page ad on the page right across from that article? Doesn't it accomplish the same thing? And if advertisers aren't somehow exerting an editorial influence, then what exactly has been gained here?

It seems to me that there are two options: 1) "native advertising" is merely a hypeword that makes it easier to charge a premium for ad space, because it gets buyers irrationally excited. 2) The thing of value being sold w/ native advertising is actually a very tiny amount of editorial influence, something which otherwise is incredibly scarce and, ethics aside, would understandably carry a very high pricetag.

edit - of course there is the other option, which most likely is the real-life case: 3) Native advertising is valuable because it is not a traditional ad-space, consumers aren't used to it, and most readers will not recognize it as an ad unless they read carefully (and how many publications are read carefully, really?).

[rickyyean]

Not traditional ad space, therefore escapes "banner blindness" and works on mobile. Also what's happening here is also brands are paying to associate with the publishers' brand directly (and slowly eroding it if not done well). Chevron paid the New York Times to produce a post about an important topic like energy and gets to enjoy New York Times' authority and trustworthiness. It's not dissimilar to a Simpsons episode on Hulu "presented by Dove." It can be done really well, with clear separation, and the positive association happens when a reader associates quality content with a sponsor. Publishers know what's at stake and I think they are learning this balance.

EDIT: Actually I thought about it some more. Maybe native advertising only works for entertainment content. A brand can present it, and because there's relatively little scrutiny on the part of the readers, it's fine. New York Times writing about energy policy is on the other side of the spectrum. Massive scrutiny. Any brand influence will be flagged.

[ryanpardieck]

That's a really good point. Entertainment does do the "presented by" thing quite well. I will say though that for me at least, part of why it works so well is most shows have trained me to see that "presented by ..." segment as basically a slightly different commercial.

Maybe entertainment has just had more time to learn the ropes. I watch Pardon The Interruption occasionally, and I think they have a "presented by ..." every episode while listing a few beers. However, if in the middle of a discussion Wilbon stood up, showed off his duds, and said "This episode presented to you by Snazzy Suits Inc" ... well, that'd feel pretty crappy.

Maybe that's basically the point news media is at right now. I wonder, then, what would doing it better look like? I think something like "This week's spotlight on 'Videogames and Violence' sponsored by: Blizzard and Madden 2015'" could potentially be better. Remove the sponsorship from a single article to a swath of articles with differing viewpoints, and always have a couple sponsors instead of only one. I think that's closer to something that feels right, as a reader. Maybe.