» uk-netmarketing: roundup: 29-09-2000

Do advertorials con the reader?
UK-Netmarketing Weekly Round-up - September 29, 2000

It's not only heated debate and intellectual wrangling that create sore heads for UKNM subscribers. This week the second Chinwag networking event took place, much beer was drunk, many crisps and sweets were eaten and plenty of soft toys were taken home. Trust me, you had to be there. In spite of this, it was a lively time on the mailing list.

Leslie Bunder asked a simple enough question, "We all know about printed advertorials, but anyone on the list use or worked with online advertorials? Are there any case studies or examples of good/bad examples of an online advertorial?"

A few examples were posted, but things really heated up after Richard Bailey replied, "From my view the idea of an advertorial seems wrong ... If it is paid for then it is an advert, if its worth selling then say it, for no money. Conning the user into thinking that an advert is real content is not good from a moral stand. You would hope that the content of any news, reviews or info site would be honest enough to say when something has been paid for. For example the ITC don't let you do that in a TV program, even product placement has a limit."

Andrew Warner emailed back, "I disagree. ... Advertorial can work if the brand being advertised and the host publication are a good match ... Youth/FMCG brands have used them to good effect for years with mags such as Smash Hits, More and J17 and more recently more upmarket brands have utilised magazines such as Esquire, Arena and Vogue to good effect. It is has absolutely nothing to do with conning people, advertorial is always introduced as promotional content by responsible publications, and it is pretty obvious that it is promoting a product. Advertorial can allow media and product brands to support each other's values and to build credibility. For example A new shaving product running advertorial in FHM's 'looking good' section benefits from association with the FHM brand, is able to introduce its product features to readers and can then go on to offer readers the opportunity to enter a competition (for data capture), offer a coupon/discount (to promote sampling) or insert a sample sachet to allow immediate sampling. It is not a replacement for advertising, or any other communication medium, but offers an option that can be use to good effect if relevant to marketing objectives and to the readers of a publication. ... However, as interactive TV develops, and the concept of the traditional ad-break becomes eroded, IMHO more and more advertisers are likely to look seriously at these options...though hopefully the quality will improve on offerings such as OK TV!"

Richard Bailey responded, "The reason they are banned on the TV is they are seem to the masses (who it seems have been deemed unable to think for themselves) as a real persons personal view. The TV regulators say that if this view is paid for then it is an advert and should be clearly stated or understood. The difference in the law is number of users and government regulators. I feel a con is a con and giving a con a big wordy name and putting it on the net does not make it right. The whole point I was making is that it will devalue a site and I can never escape the feeling that it is wrong because it is masked as a real balanced 'human' view."

Tony Newland added, "I think that is the info is informative, interesting and factually to the point then as with other forms of advertising it is up to the viewer to make up their own mind. This leads to future questions about product placement in the various media (film, television etc) where the position in the States is v different from here in the UK. With the advent of set top boxes which may/may not result in ads being chopped by the viewer at some point, paying for product placement in films and TV shows is going to be increasingly debated and eventually (IMHO) utilised. Although the law on this is a sticking point at present. Is a lead character in a film which is made in the US which we see in the UK regardless drinking a can of Coke (sorry couldn't resist) dishonest, even when said brand has paid x amount for it?"

An interesting point, particularly if advanced digital image processing would allow the film's producers to sell the product placement space to different sponsors in each territory. Richard Bailey continued on this theme, writing, "I have no problem with them as long as they are noted as sponsored by... It is a small but important difference. And product placement is a good product intro. Superman III (first film where product placement became an issue and problem) displayed there is some need for rules there should be limits. The truck that crushed Superman had a very well know cigarette company written all over its sides. This was frowned on because it was a family film. I see nothing wrong with the right product in the right place (Nokia mobile just arrived in a jiffy bag) and yes the Coke bill board in Superman III was a good one, no complaints there (had to sorry). Help, I am not anti advertising just cons, I see so many on the Internet and feel large companies should set an example."

Fiona Campbell-Howes emailed, "I beg to differ - I've written advertorials for clients and they are always clearly marked as "promotion" or "advertisement" when they are published. They are just long-copy print adverts, which is why clients often get their PRs to write them rather than their ad agencies. You see them in women's magazines all the time too, and they are never presented as or mistaken for editorial."

Sam Carrington took the middle ground, writing, "I would be inclined to take the middle way - advertorial can appear as both 'marked' and 'unmarked' (IMHO) how would you describe the Adidas/Lee Evans Olympics shorts described in the Guardian last week. They are not marked as adverts, contain no Adidas branding, run as 1 minute shorts in the Olympics feed and even appeared on the BBC. They BBC are apparently even considering packaging all the slots into one longer slot to run in the future. They are effective lifestyle/editorial content and the only reference they make to Adidas is with the tracksuits, which Mr Evans and his co-conspirators are sporting. What about the PS2 campaign mentioned in the same article. No branding, just an evocative image and a slogan designed to pique curiosity and encourage debate. However press content does, I agree, usually get marked with 'advertisement' or 'promotion'. For now at least. Lets hope the Adidas campaign doesn't set too attractive a precedent. But I fear it has. Remind me again why soap opera is so called, and how it originated. Oh yeah - that's right. They were invented for the purposes of selling soap. So TV returns to its roots."

It seems the fine line between editorial and advertorial is becoming ever more blurred. At the very least we can look forward to seeing more words like edutainment splattered throughout the new media press.

receive uk-netmarketing-roundup by email, every week
Just pop your email address in the form below and receive the uk-netmarketing roundup via email each week. You'll receive an email with details on how to confirm your subscription.

return to top