You have to feel for journalists and publishers, since everybody else insists on (a) swiping content from newspapers and magazines, (b) “aggregating” all that content on the Series of Tubes before (c) having your hot startup get bought out by Silicon Valley for $300 million while (d) the journalists who created all that content get pink slips.
So yeah, any form of advertising that’s bringing money to print is a godsend.
HOWEVER: John Oliver is right when he goes off about “native advertising,” a new twist on an old concept. Instead of having news, then ads, why not knock down those walls and make the ads look just like news?
I still believe that real ads in real newspapers and magazine are far more effective than banner ads on the web. Also, this trend can’t last forever. John Oliver is right about somebody having to create all this content, and get paid for it. The trouble is how easy newspapers and magazines made it to either read the stories for free — most paywalls are a joke — or “aggregate” the stories online with no consequences.
Either way, John the Oliver is proving that you can go on deep, 11-minute comedy rants that actually educate people, about serious topics, while making them laugh. Lectures are boring. Mockery is the greatest weapon.
4 thoughts on “‘Native advertising’ disguised as news: miracle money or menace to journalism?”
The best advertising is really when we don’t even noticed it was advertising. I agree with you that making ads as if they were news is much more effective.
More effective but more dishonest and tricky.
Thanks for commenting! Also: seven languages is impressive.
Thanks Guy for such a nice personalized reply. Our best marketing efforts were precisely when we addressed each campaign, personalized to each single individual. From your reply, I feel you are a great marketer 🙂
Aww. Thanks. 🙂