Can the NYT shift native ad labeling debate?
The New York Times is still the gold standard of publishers. So its digital embrace of native advertising is a big step toward legitimizing this modernized version of the advertorial. Importantly, the Times is also looking to impose far more rigid standards than those currently used throughout the publishing world.
In a memo to staff Thursday, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger noted that the Times would take several measures to assure its native ads are not confused with editorial content when they debut next month. Following the lead of advertorial in the paper, it will set apart such articles online with a different typeface. It will also feature a color bar, the advertiser’s logo and, perhaps most importantly, the label “paid post.” This is one step toward calling these advertisements by name: ads.
That labeling is important. Most publishers, including Digiday, have tended to shy away from such direct labels, opting instead for “sponsored content,” “sponsor content,” “partner content” and other euphemisms. (Digiday uses “sponsored content.”) At a Federal Trade Commission hearing earlier this month on native advertising, labeling occupied much of the discussion. Nobody agreed on an approach. The Interactive Advertising Bureau’s first step toward standards also punted on the issue, concluding that it is dependent on the environment. The only IAB guideline is it should be clear to a “reasonable consumer.”
The Times is predictably taking the high road here. Previously, Forbes had chosen to call their native ad areas “Brand Voice.” (A main architect of the Forbes native ad strategy, Meredith Levien, is now evp of advertising at the Times.) By embracing the more straightforward “paid post” tag, the Times could push the market toward greater transparency in its labeling practice — and in the process allay some of the concerns regulators have over content-style advertising.
-
Digiday+ Research: Nearly two-thirds of publishers think they will lose when the third-party cookie dies
Publishers have been busy prepping for the end of the third-party cookie, but that doesn't mean they think they'll come out on top in the post-cookie era. In fact, publishers count themselves among those who stand to lose from the end of the cookie.
-
Media Briefing: Publisher execs fear lack of visibility for Q3, but feel steady year over year
Publisher execs share how Q2 shook out for their businesses as they brace for an equally murky second half.
-
Spotify cancels six true crime podcasts amid layoffs, Gimlet-Parcast merger
Spotify is canceling six shows and laying off 200 people as it merges its Gimlet and Parcast units to push its podcast business towards profitability.
-
SponsoredWhat the measurement and currency discussion really means to TV advertisers
Ali Mack, head of TV and agency, Experian Major streaming video providers have recently made headlines by adopting new currencies for ad measurement, threatening Nielsen’s long-standing TV ratings monopoly. NBCUniversal, for example, has certified iSpot and VideoAmp as currencies for advanced audiences and formed the Joint Industry Committee with Paramount, TelevisaUnivision and Warner Bros. Discovery. […]
-
As AI spreads across the marketing landscape, data’s role will be key to success or danger
There’s a growing awareness of the risks inherent in AI's ultra-powerful potential, but whether enough steps are being taken to mitigate them remains a huge question mark.
-
‘Not the future’: European publishers remain steadfast in blocking alternative IDs to third-party cookies
Some European publishers believe alternatives to the third-party cookies, probabilistic or deterministic, will do more harm than good to their ads businesses.