And this was the point where I threw up: "We’ve combined the roles of editor-in-chief and chief marketing officer. While this is admittedly unusual, it has been highly effective; with one person responsible for both original editorial and branded content, we can better help advertisers speak authentically to our audience."
That of course makes clear the true purpose of their business: to help advertisers manipulate consumers. Which I entirely believe; the novel thing is admitting it.
I disagree that my point is that the true purpose of our business is to help advertisers manipulate consumers. I clearly state later, "the audience is also responding positively. We have run multiple focus groups that have demonstrated to us that people in our core demographic (18-to-29-year-olds) actually like branded content if it is informative and adds value to them. In some cases, particularly video, they almost expect that high-quality content has been sponsored."
We are not trying to fool our audience, and we have not sacrificed editorial integrity. We have simply made it easier (and better) for our partners to buy what advertisers have always bought: consumer attention. Native content has been around for decades (in the 1950s baseball announcers described home runs as "Ballantine Blasts" after Ballantine beer). We are running a business, and native content is a valuable asset we have to sell.
"Native content has been around for decades (in the 1950s baseball announcers described home runs as "Ballantine Blasts" after Ballantine beer)."
That's a bad example, since it's very easy to tell the difference between the paid product reference and the actual reporting of the ball game. But if the native ads look just like the non-ad content, it's much harder to see which is which.
Maybe this will come as a shock to you, but the commercial purpose of advertising is to manipulate purchasing choices. That people respond positively does not mean they aren't being manipulated. Surely in your industry you have met plenty of people who are both very charming and entirely manipulative. Unpleasant manipulators quickly lose their access, so I don't doubt that your advertisers have learned how to make the process enjoyable.
I am similarly sure that you believe you haven't sacrificed editorial integrity. But when I did work for fashion magazines long ago, it wasn't my impression that they understood the term in the same way my hard-news friends did. Or that I do, really.
I certainly agree that you're running a business, and I agree that putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is very likely to be good for your revenues in this age of turmoil. But hopefully you can see how some, me among them, would decline to be the product you are selling.
I can't imagine that there would be anything I would want to read on any site that had such editorial policies. It would make it impossible to trust any non-ad content as being objective.
P.S. I hope that "native content" that smells like advertising doesn't get submitted to HN. It would probably get flagged to death pretty quickly.
6 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 23.7 ms ] threadThat of course makes clear the true purpose of their business: to help advertisers manipulate consumers. Which I entirely believe; the novel thing is admitting it.
We are not trying to fool our audience, and we have not sacrificed editorial integrity. We have simply made it easier (and better) for our partners to buy what advertisers have always bought: consumer attention. Native content has been around for decades (in the 1950s baseball announcers described home runs as "Ballantine Blasts" after Ballantine beer). We are running a business, and native content is a valuable asset we have to sell.
That's a bad example, since it's very easy to tell the difference between the paid product reference and the actual reporting of the ball game. But if the native ads look just like the non-ad content, it's much harder to see which is which.
I am similarly sure that you believe you haven't sacrificed editorial integrity. But when I did work for fashion magazines long ago, it wasn't my impression that they understood the term in the same way my hard-news friends did. Or that I do, really.
I certainly agree that you're running a business, and I agree that putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is very likely to be good for your revenues in this age of turmoil. But hopefully you can see how some, me among them, would decline to be the product you are selling.
P.S. I hope that "native content" that smells like advertising doesn't get submitted to HN. It would probably get flagged to death pretty quickly.