Comments on: And now, a word against our sponsor http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/ Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: tmc http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/#comment-14035 Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:02:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1492#comment-14035 Unfortunately CapnCrunch, the vast majority of the population will not know the difference. They will not see the slow steady change from independent news and opinions to nothing more than corporate press releases. They really won’t know the difference. I think it is a sad time for the “Media” industry. Their world is being significantly affected by technology and the struggles to survive often show the worst side of an organization. Fooling the people for money is now justifiable. What a shame.

]]>
By: CliffB http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/#comment-14034 Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:11:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1492#comment-14034 Jack, good points are made in this article, but the native advertising/editorial divide issue is very over dramatized and generalized… and there was no internet in the times of George Orwell or Benjamin Franklin… the game has changed, digital media is adapting. The whole point of sponsored content/native advertising is that it is a type of advertisement/content that integrates uniquely with THEIR website and delivers a personalized message to that unique audience. Meaning that every style should be relatively different, so generalizing this as everyone is doing it either exactly like The Atlantic or Buzzfeed doesn’t make sense. Tumblr is doing it completely differently, Forbes does it differently (although the CFO quote: BrandVoice: “It’s not an ad, it’s thought leadership.” comment is rather pretentious…), it all depends on their curation of advertisers and the sponsored content to create an informative yet relevant context to the reader if they are interested in that type of product or service. Also not having a clear divide is ILLEGAL. So if the publisher is in fact plopping in their sponsored content and as the same type face with a little misleading 6pt. “Sponsored Content” at the bottom, they will have more issues than just pissed off readers, the FTC may come knocking on their door. Point being, this has to be looked at on a case by case basis, and it isn’t all that bad for everyone in most cases. Personally, I would rather have the option to click on an advertorial on Forbes for example, for a relevant business service I may be interested in, than deal with their annoying pop ups or video banner ads that block an editorial article every time I click on a new one.

]]>
By: CaptnCrunch http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/#comment-14029 Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:01:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1492#comment-14029 Agreed, well done sir and this from a reader who more than once has takes umbrage with some of your other thought bombs.

Consumers are rarely as gullible as the Madison Avenue types would make us out to be so bring on the new ad forms and let’s see who’s the wiser.

I bet we can still recognize the quacking!

]]>
By: hoops2 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/#comment-14026 Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:53:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1492#comment-14026 Agree with all written but also understand the business dilemma for newspapers. If banner ads don’t work (they don’t) then what? How to stay in business? As Shafer points out sponsored content not the way. One problem might be the advertisers need for ROI…with sponsored content PR team can run to the boss and say “look we got our message in the post and it looks just like one of their stories — how’s that for ROI!” But as Shafer shows its a false positive that fools no one and is likely read by less. Thus in reality no ROI at all. Back to the drawing board for advertisers and publishers alike it seems…

]]>
By: tmc http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/#comment-14023 Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:45:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1492#comment-14023 So, I should just stop reading the news even on Rueters? Yes, normally you can spot a paid piece. But I don’t like being played for a fool, so I’ll just stop reading.
Good bye Reuters!

]]>
By: UnderRated http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/#comment-14019 Sat, 09 Mar 2013 04:20:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1492#comment-14019 Well done Jack! Your opinion is heartening. Keep on fighting the good fight, please.

]]>
By: BenMC http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/#comment-14016 Sat, 09 Mar 2013 01:31:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1492#comment-14016 Pleased to see you mention Herb Schmertz, who many of your younger readers (under 50??) might not know. Those ads were well written, succinct, aptly placed–and unambiguously from Mobil. But I read them regularly, sometimes agreed, sometimes not. I think they make for a very good model for sponsored editorial.

]]>
By: SneakAdtack http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/03/08/and-now-a-word-against-our-sponsor/#comment-14015 Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:07:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=1492#comment-14015 The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald both have sponsored-content sites.

See here:

http://bit.ly/YRLuWD

and here:

http://bit.ly/10jboWt

]]>