I absolutely agree. Transparency is critical. IIRC, that was the primary focus of the FTC proceedings, as well - to make sure that where content was sponsored, it was responsibly disclosed to the reader. It's a matter of concern to publishers, advertisers, and regulators alike.
> if the editorial process of the nation's "paper of record" is so amendable to the interests of the state, why should anyone believe a tech publication like Mashable is any less amendable to corporate interests?
Well, for one, corporate interests can't legally destroy the company, throw its employees in prison, seize their assets, or do the other various things that the government can. The other thing is that if Brand X won't agree to play by the rules, we can go do business with Brand Y. It's a legitimate concern, but I do think it's fundamentally different.
My concern with things like Ad Detector is that I think it feeds a fundamental misunderstanding of what native advertising is, and breeds mistrust that isn't necessarily warranted, because of the lack of distinction between advertorials and advertiser-not-involved-in-content-production articles. Having more information is good, but if the plugin leads people to believe that not-advertorials are advertorials, then it's not doing anyone any favors.
> but if the plugin leads people to believe that not-advertorials are advertorials, then it's not doing anyone any favors.
I think part of the point is that we already think that as consumers.
I feel like you and your well-intentioned colleagues may be fighting an uphill battle against an already-established colloquial definition of Native Advertising.
Plugins like this are given rise because people already feel tricked by Native Advertising, and for those who choose to use the plugin it's safe to say we're fed up with it.
From our perspective, you people (publishers) had a chance to not abuse this but unfortunately a few bad apples have ruined it for you. Don't hate the plugin that protects your consumers, hate the publishers who ruined it for the rest of you.
> I think part of the point is that we already think that as consumers.
Exactly. We've burned ourselves on this too many times on too many different occasions.
Instead of full transparency, I'd wish to see a publisher going full-blown, overdrive, in-your-face transparency. Don't wait for a browser extension like this. Put the big sign at the top of an article that says "yes, this content was paid for by XYZ", or "company XYZ paid to be on all banner ads in this article, but didn't have any say about the content". Publishers, be honest with us, and slowly, you may regain our trust.
> Publishers, be honest with us, and slowly, you may regain our trust.
But only for a while. How long do you think it would take until some publishers would accept extra payments to attach a more "favourable" sign to an article? I would give it less than 6 months. (In other words: maximum of two fiscal quarters.)
The next logical step would be to accept payments to withdraw the sponsorship banner altogether, followed by outright extortion to keep the banner away. (Only it wouldn't be called extortion. It would be sold as tiered pricing.)
That is how much trust I have in the online publishing industry these days. And I fear I am not cynical enough.
I think that's perfectly fair. As a reader, I've read print magazines like Wired and am constantly looking for the "This is an advertisement" text, because yeah, I have felt tricked by it in the past. I think it's is completely reasonable to want to be able to know when you're reading something that was written by an advertising agency versus something written by a journalist. What I take issue with is the misconception that "native advertising" is "advertiser paid to publish their PR copy disguised as an article". To that end, I quite agree - the culprit are the bad apples who have tried to pull a fast one on the reader, but I've seen this growing sentiment that "native advertising = companies trying to trick you!!1", and don't feel that it's at all accurate.
I like the idea of the plugin - where it isn't clear that content is sponsored, make it clear. Sponsorship information should always be disclosed, plain and simple. I am not sure that I like the implementation - the banner says "This article is an advertisement", which is bluntly inaccurate in the cases of most native advertising, and may lead the reader into drawing incorrect conclusions about the content and who wrote it.
> but I've seen this growing sentiment that "native advertising = companies trying to trick you!!1"
Portraying this "growing sentiment" (that I frankly don't really see--here on HN? or somewhere else?) in the voice of a teenage leet/text speak kid (with the "!!1") doesn't really help your credibility. It's a straw man and I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing this.
Regardless of this dubious way of presenting your argument, there's still a very clear conflict of interests with "native advertising" even when it's not right-out "advertiser paid to publish their PR copy disguised as an article". This conflict of interests is a bane for quality journalism, it will cause a bias in what's written eventually, no matter how you turn it. The fact that this bias is way more subtle than "PR copy disguised as an article" doesn't make it better as much as it makes it more insidious (up to the point that the author might even defend it with a straight face) (probably in a manner very much like what you are defending in this thread here and right now).
> "the misconception that "native advertising" is "advertiser paid to publish their PR copy disguised as an article""
I follow Noah Webster's reasoning here: usage is meaning. Language follows "the same republican principles as American civil and ecclesiastical constitutions". And the term "native advertising", in common usage, refers to PR copy disguised as an article.
If you're doing something different, great! Come up with a name to distinguish it from the other stuff.
In the bit of the business world I've seen, you try and maintain the relationships with people who pay you.
If an advertiser is paying to have their name linked on an article, I think it'll influence whether a writer includes some interesting but negative bit of information about the advertiser- regardless of any other involvement of the advertiser.
It's this subtle sort of interaction between a publisher, author, and advertiser that causes conflicts of interest without anyone trying to be sneaky or anything- just the perfectly natural instinct not to bite the hand that feeds you.
> if the editorial process of the nation's "paper of record" is so amendable to the interests of the state, why should anyone believe a tech publication like Mashable is any less amendable to corporate interests?
Well, for one, corporate interests can't legally destroy the company, throw its employees in prison, seize their assets, or do the other various things that the government can. The other thing is that if Brand X won't agree to play by the rules, we can go do business with Brand Y. It's a legitimate concern, but I do think it's fundamentally different.
My concern with things like Ad Detector is that I think it feeds a fundamental misunderstanding of what native advertising is, and breeds mistrust that isn't necessarily warranted, because of the lack of distinction between advertorials and advertiser-not-involved-in-content-production articles. Having more information is good, but if the plugin leads people to believe that not-advertorials are advertorials, then it's not doing anyone any favors.