Native advertising, which Forbes defines as “ads…designed to fit so closely with a publication’s content that they appear to be part of a publication,” is often described as a tool news organizations need to maintain a steady revenue stream. While the practice is lucrative, it also jeopardizes the editorial independence of newsrooms as journalists become aware of what advertisers want them to discuss. Today, brands are able to work with journalists in unprecedented ways that are difficult to regulate, because very few people know how such partnerships between advertiser and publisher are negotiated.

I worked at the New York Times’ branded content studio, T Brand Studio, for two years. During this time, I found that native ads felt hackneyed to the people creating them. When the practice first started, its focus was on crafting branded articles that gave readers a compelling narrative behind a company’s new product or service. Today publishers are increasingly finding ways to partner with advertisers on custom content without being transparent to readers about these deals.

As media critics, academics, and news consumers debate the ethics of native advertising, I fear they’re missing the larger story of how publishers are evolving their business model to secure revenue. Advertisers are asking the New York Times and other news publishers for more. They want to work with the newsroom in deeper and more complex ways. To combat this breakdown of the editorial and advertising wall, media watchdogs need to fight for regulation that demands news publishers disclose which brands they are working with and what they have been asked to produce.

Advertisers want novelty

As a Creative Strategist in T Brand Studio, I was tasked with crafting proposals that showed marketers how the Times could create bespoke advertising opportunities that would capture an engaged audience. In practice, this means working closely with the sales staff across specific categories such as finance, live entertainment, and luxury, and to respond to RFPs (requests for proposal). A common theme in these RFPs was a request for something that “has never been done before.” This wasn’t a surprise, because it is not always enough to offer a brand digital ad space: rather, content studios need to deliver creative ideas to clients.

When I worked in the finance category, this often meant communicating how a bank could provide readers with helpful information while also highlighting the benefits of their services. This involved sharing a headline for a branded article, or paid post, as well as a high-level outline of what the article would discuss. It quickly became obvious that pitching branded articles was not nearly enough: After a financial client runs one native ad outlining how they enable people to invest in the things they care about, the revenue stream is dead. This means that the advertising department needs to create additional opportunities for clients.

Publishers invest in staff that sit between advertising and editorial

You don’t have to look further than LinkedIn or NYT’s public job portal to see that the paper is actively developing new ad formats that further blur the line between news and advertising. For example, Michael Villasenor is currently the creative director of Ad Marketing and Innovation. His responsibilities, as he describes them, are to “work alongside the publisher and newsroom team to ensure that we properly support all of their marketing needs. This also includes developing original digital and print ad materials in order to secure never-been-done-before treatments within the marketplace.” Today, publishers must create advertising opportunities that enable brands to champion content series editors may want to work on.

This development actually outstrips concerns over the labeling of native ads. When the newsroom wants to work on special series of stories, they may reach out to T Brand to see if it will be easy to underwrite the editorial initiative with advertising dollars. When T Brand gives editors feedback on what clients want (articles on 401k, retirement, etc.), the editors may decide to pay more attention to such topics than they would have initially. Now, this isn’t something that will ever be explicitly stated. Rather, it will be baked into the larger partnership between advertiser and publisher.

Samsung shows us where native is going

The demands advertisers have placed on publishers have evolved quite ominously from T Brand’s inception in 2014. Debate over the clear labeling of branded articles seems like child’s play today. Now many regulators — and even people in the industry — have a hard time defining what should be labeled as native content. It is no longer as easy as spotting a branded article and asking a publisher to put a disclaimer on it. NYT’s partnership with Samsung is a prime example of this.

The Times was a perfect partner to deliver 360-degree content for the promotion of Samsung’s technology, because the paper had established a strong reputation in the VR space. Last year, staff at T Brand Studio and my co-workers on the Creative Strategy team were asked to create a custom advertising opportunity for Samsung that involved the newsroom. This campaign was called The Daily 360.

Money changed hands and yet the PR and headlines around the campaign never called it a native ad or sponsorship. Instead the Times press release included a small footnote reading: “Times journalists have been provided with Samsung Gear 360 cameras and equipment to use while reporting out in the field.” Neiman Lab’s report mentioned the deal as a “partnership” with Samsung, with an exchange of technology, and noted that Samsung could publish the videos on their own platforms.

Samsung’s own press release on the partnership probably came closest to explaining just how much the tech giant was supporting the Times. In the release there’s this telling quote from Meredith Kopit Levien, executive vice president and chief revenue officer of the Times: “It’s because of Samsung’s support and filming technology that we’re able to give global audiences a true sense of what it means when the New York Times is covering the breadth of what’s happening in the world.”

This example is not meant to highlight only the blurred lines between advertising and editorial. There are enough articles across the internet on how journalism is doomed, but offer neither solutions nor sympathy for the plight of newsrooms across the nation. The New York Times is still committed to protecting the unadulterated vision and agenda of its newsroom: this has not changed.

What has changed is the level of transparency, across publishing, that is provided to readers and media watchdogs. Rather, the Samsung example shows the pace at which publishers are forced to generate novel advertising opportunities in an effort to secure much needed revenue. While my first-hand experience has been with the Times, the RFPs and negotiations between publisher and advertiser to blur the line is an industry-wide trend. It is nearly impossible for people to know what to regulate if they can’t even spot the advertising execution after it has gone live.

The solution demands disclosure

Currently, no rule or policy exists that require news outlets to disclose that they have received x dollars from y client to produce z advertising placement(s). It’s important to note here that disclosing what is and is not funded by an advertiser would not slow down the production of such campaigns, partnerships, native ads — whatever the news outlet wants to call it. Publishers should disclose the terms of their deals with advertisers in quarterly reports and on their website. This is the mandate we should require all publishers to adhere to. It will secure the separation of church and state, editorial and advertising. It will provide people with the level of transparency journalists should always offer for readers.

Often, when writers discuss the ethical implications of native advertising, and how the newsroom feels about the practice, they seem to forget that editors know it helps the paper. Editors are aware that if they can work with advertisers without sacrificing their vision and mission, the extra dollars help secure the newsrooms’ survival. Editors and reporters in the newsroom know the revenue generated by T Brand helps secure their job. We should stop painting advertisers as the problem and start realizing that journalists are also responsible and need to stand up to editorial interference.

Ava Sirrah is a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University, where she studies how native ads impact newsroom decision making. She is interested in regulating the industry, spreading media literacy, and exploring new revenue streams for publishers. She worked at The New York Times for two years as a Creative Strategist. 

The post The Blurring Line Between Editorial and Native Ads at the New York Times appeared first on MediaShift.

Readers and media observers widely acknowledge native advertising as a key ingredient in a publisher’s revenue model, but the practice is still in its Wild West days. Despite the fact that mainstream publishers have invested heavily in creating their own content studios and have launched numerous campaigns they are still struggling to define best practices for the writers who create this native content.

Regulators like the FTC have stepped in and placed three general guidelines on branded content studios. They ask writers of native content to be transparent, disclose that the editorial narrative they have written is an ad, and finally to be clear and prominent with this information. However these rules still leave writers with a considerable degree of flexibility in terms of generating content that fits the perimeters the FTC has set.

While the broad rules are a helpful starting point, they are not nearly as comprehensive as they need to be to properly guide the writers of native content. Authors of native ads have the laborious task of not only crafting a compelling story for readers of their publication but they also must weave a brand’s messaging into the narrative.

As someone who works on crafting brand stories for The New York Times, I have noticed the conversation surrounding the ethics of native ads lacks a nuanced understanding of how such articles are pitched, sold, and created. Understanding the process behind the creation of this content is integral to implementing the right rules for authors of native content. As it can guard against mistakes that are made when authors pitch clients on brand stories. This ensures regulation doesn’t simply take place after a native ad has been published on a new site. Rather by outlining principles that address the process of developing a native ad we can show writers what potential red flags they can proactively guard against.

Only after engaging with companies that are interested in creating native ads have I been able to identify what people inside the industry can do to not only protect readers but improve the reputation of the practice overall. The following guidelines are meant to provide native content creators with suggestions on how to best create and deliver branded content that protects the interests of readers.

1. Editors at each content studio should agree on one native ad disclaimer.

News publishers have an assortment of options when it comes to choosing how they want to label native advertisements. The FTC has approved any disclaimer that clearly states that the story has been paid for by an advertiser. They require publishers to be transparent about the fact that such content is commercial and that this disclosure needs to be clearly stated and prominent. But the disclosure language each publisher uses varies and this can cause undue confusion for readers.

For example, Re:Think is The Atlantic’s branded content studio and they label native ads as “Sponsor Content.” While The Guardian produces such work under the name Guardian Labs and labels it as “Paid Content.” I work in T Brand Studio at The New York Times where we create native content and call it out for readers as “Paid For And Posted By Advertiser ” with the appropriate client’s logo. While all these differences may seem minute and irrelevant I argue consistency is key when discussing the ethics of delivering an advertiser message to readers.

The Atlantic’s approach to labeling. Screenshot.

The FTC has provided a starting point, but they can also enforce uniform disclosures.

The lead brand editor at each content studios can agree to label native disclaimers with the same language their competitors are using. This reduces the ambient fear that the practice tricks readers, as they will always know what to expect and how exactly such content is delivered.

2. Be the expert and educator.

Native Content is in its Wild West days for reasons that go beyond inconsistent labeling of ads. The practice is unruly because many brands have not yet dipped their toe in it and they don’t know what to expect or how to use the medium. That is why branded content writers need to play the role of educator at the earliest stages of working with companies who want a story.

Nearly every client I have worked with has asked what the KPI (Key Performance Indicator) is for a branded editorial narrative. To which I have more than once said, it’s not to push product. Native ads are meant to engage readers with new narrative and drive brand consideration, not purchase, of a product or service. Educating clients early on is key to helping them realize if this is even the right avenue for them to explore.

If a PR firm could have written it, then you as a branded content creator should not have. The key difference here is that while PR announces new information and can highlight a product’s attributes native ads need to work harder. They have to earn reader engagement to be successful and impactful. This means writers need to explain that the story will not immediately mention a brand, product or service like a press release.

Expectation setting is essential to not only ensuring publishers and clients have productive relationships but furthermore this step helps prevent reader backlash and aggravation. Something that was exemplified by The Atlantic’s ad, “David Miscavige Leads Scientology Into a Milestone Year.” Native can not simply outline what a client requests, writers need to play the role of experts in the medium.

3. Research like a professor.

Stock image.

Readers approach native content with skepticism since- they know a brand paid for it. This means the author of branded content must not only keep their interest, but also prove a factual basis for the points the sponsor would like to make.

Substantiating brand stories means uncovering research and pivoting the story to fit facts as necessary. Writers of branded content need to be well versed in not only fact-finding but in working with third party survey vendors like YouGov to uncover data points that tell a truthful and thus more meaningful story.

If native content had footnotes linking out to such custom surveys or reports it would show readers a tangible story exists behind a brand. Allowing research to take center stage also buttresses the FTC’s guidelines that branded content should be transparent and honest.

4. Give yourself space to shift the narrative of a native ad.

Photo by Nic McPhee on Flickr and used here with Creative Commons license.

News reporters have a general idea of the story they want to tell before they start writing but often, after they interview people or finish gathering information in the field, the story pivots from what they originally had in mind. The same is true for writers of native ads, they may learn something while talking to a key decision maker at a company or uncover something in their research that shifts the focal point of a story.

This process and potential changes to the narrative should be communicated to client early in the process of selling native ads. In large part what they are paying for is professional storytelling and that can mean shifting the story once writers start uncovering more information. Of course no brand wants you to shift what you initially promised to write about but all too often brands don’t have an understanding of how the brand writing process works.

Writers can solve for this by sharing timeline and process information with clients when they want to learn more about native ads. By outlining that the process starts with interviewing people at the company and users of the product or service they quickly start to see that a great deal of care is placed in crafting native content. Authors should feel empowered to explain this thus buying flexibility to make storyline changes that will ultimately be more interesting for readers.

These rules are meant to help authors of native content navigate how to best work with clients while protecting the interests of readers. Despite the fact that content studios have been around for a few years, the actual creators of such content rarely speak about the problems they face and how to best solve for industry wide challenges. Perhaps opening the door to this discussion will help inform the agenda of native advertising regulators.

Ava Sirrah is a creative strategist at The New York Times where she crafts branded content campaigns for finance and live entertainment clients. Previously she worked on Madison Avenue as a strategist for BBDO and McCann. Her current research explores native advertising’s ability to impact revenue models for news publishers. 

The post 4 Guiding Principles for Creating Native Content appeared first on MediaShift.