Native ads as a threat to the credibility of the media

Native advertising, content marketing, brand journalism. The new buzzwords all essentially mean the same thing, namely advertising that looks like journalism but is not. It's about using a trick to draw readers/users to the commercial message. You don't advertise the product or service directly, but tell a story around it. A story that at first glance gives the impression that you are dealing with a classic editorial article. This is also known as "storytelling". Yes, I know, publishers have guidelines according to which native ads (for the younger ones: they used to be called public reports or advertorials) should be clearly differentiated from editorial articles in terms of layout. But let's put it this way: this is handled quite differently in practice.Born out of necessityBut it seems to be working for the time being. Especially in the USA, but increasingly in Europe too, as a recent study by the Content Marketing Forum CMF on German-speaking countries shows. These new forms of advertising owe their upswing to the problems facing traditional advertising in both the print and online sectors. Declining circulation figures are putting pressure on advertising revenues, and online doesn't seem to be really taking off either, especially as technology offers workarounds such as the increasingly popular adblockers. The irony, by the way, is that it is precisely in the print media sector, which has been predicted to decline for years, that advertisements receive the most attention. However, given these developments, it is understandable that media companies are on the lookout for new sources of income, but is native advertising the egg of Columbus in the fight against the decline in revenue from traditional advertising? For Christian Lüscher from Tamedia, this seems to be the case. In any case, he recently spoke out eloquently in favor of this advertising variant in "Schweizer Journalist" (6-7/2016), which his company apparently defines as "paid advertising" (?). The following sentence is remarkable: "But paid advertising does not differ significantly from conventional journalistic content in terms of either its content or its form". And further: "In contrast to a classic publicity report, the native ad is not produced by the client, but by its own internal native editorial team". With respect, this is window dressing. Of course a native ad - in contrast to a purely editorial article - only contains content in the interests of the client, which is what he is paying for after all. And then the icing on the cake: "Native advertising is the next supreme discipline in journalism." I tend to agree with Rainer Stadler, who recently summed up the dilemma in the NZZ: "Both publishers and the advertising industry must be interested in preserving the credibility of independent journalism for economic reasons. But at the same time, the aim is to undermine it by minimizing the creative difference to commercial messages."Credibility put up for grabs? It may come as a surprise that a PR person of all people is watching the development of native ads & co. with unease. Doesn't this open up an interesting, revenue-generating field for our industry, because we PR professionals have always been much more likely to work with journalistic stylistic devices than advertisers? At first glance and in the short to medium term, this may seem to be the case. But it's not quite that simple. Despite all the changes in the media, professional and efficient PR still relies on credible (whether traditional or non-traditional) media to convey its messages - which are also guided by interests. For their part, the media lose credibility when the boundaries between editorial contributions and advertising messages become increasingly blurred. Both should actually be pulling in the same direction. In addition, journalists and PR professionals are aware of ethical codes to which they (should) feel obliged. After all, the PR Code of Lisbon (binding for members of the professional association pr suisse, by the way) reads: "Any attempt to deceive the public or its representatives is not permitted." And: "PR activities must be carried out openly. They must be easily recognizable as such, bear a source designation and must not mislead third parties." There are good reasons why the industry itself has drawn up such codes, as not only the credibility of the media but also that of the PR industry is being put to the test in the long term.A Don Quixote ride in view of current market developments? If native ads and the like become more prevalent, it can be assumed that the resistance of readers and users to such more or less concealed forms of advertising will increase and, at the same time, the effect will decrease. The intelligence and attention of the audience should not be underestimated. All those involved in the game would therefore do well to think carefully about whether and how they use such instruments. Whatever the case, the topic will certainly occupy us even more intensively in the future than it has to date.Source: www.prsuisse.ch

Peter Eberhard*Peter Eberhard is the founder and owner of PEPR Peter Eberhard Public Relations and has been working in communications/PR for around 30 years. After studying economics at the University of Zurich (lic. oec. publ.), he initially worked in associations, including seven years as head of the press and information office of the largest industry association Swissmem, and then in a market-leading Swiss PR agency with a global network.Peter Eberhard is an accredited professional member of the Zurich Public Relations Association ZPRG.