The Federal Trade Commission spent a full day yesterday, listening to 22 representatives from publishing, technology and academia to tackle that most thorny of questions: How to label native advertising.
There were arguments on all sides, with one academic even suggesting the need to study how the eye’s fovea perceives various labeling. Publishers hedged, they cautioned against the dreaded “one-size-fits-all” approach since native ads can apparently vary so widely. That’s why there is a BrandVoice on Forbes, Featured Partners on BuzzFeed, “From Around the Web” from Outbrain, “You May Like” from Tablooa, and so on.
Coincidentally, most also paid fealty to paid search listings, hailed as the original native ad format: a form of content, perfectly suited to the environment, and found genuinely useful to consumers who click away to the tune of billions for Google’s coffers. Perhaps then the industry should keep it simple and cast its gaze on how Google has settled on labeling this “native” format:
More in Media
From brand deals to equity deals: creators want a stake, not just a fee
The creator economy is moving into a new phase: creators getting into companies at the ground floor through sweat equity or angel investing.
Media Briefing: Publishers question whether personalization actually pays off
Publishers are personalizing newsletters to get more value from readers, but questions remain over whether it’s a meaningful differentiator.
Publishers’ scorecard on Google’s ad tech remedies: they’re progress, but far from a clean win
After years of waiting for the DOJ to finally curb Google’s ad tech power, publishers are finding the devil in these new remedies.