Blog Post

As paid “stories” about cancer and financial ruin flourish on the web, are better labels the answer?

Stay on Top of Emerging Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

Call it “native advertising” or “sponsored stories” or “content marketing”  — whatever your buzzword of choice, more publishers and advertisers are embracing the tactic, which involves packaging ads to resemble the surrounding editorial content.

The result is more and more “stories” on popular sites like Time or Politico from “around the web” that are actually ads or political messages. Some of these native ad “stories” can offer quality reading with a subtle marketing message, while others amount to alarmist drivel with headlines like “10 sure signs you have cancer” or “Expert says financial collapse is upon us” — the latter ads, especially, are leading some to fret that native ads are deceitful and a “Faustian pact.

In response, Taboola, a “recommendation engine” used by many publishers to suggest stories to readers, introduced new labels this week that are intended to help readers identify “promoted content.” Here’s a screenshot of how the label looks on a web page from Time:

Taboola screenshot

CEO Adam Singolda told me in a recent interview that the company is using the new label to promote transparency and give readers more control over what ads they see; Taboola also recently introduced a feature that lets readers customize which ads appear.

The labels (which are in a very faint grey) could help readers, but will also provide more grist for regulators who are probing what companies must do to identify native advertising. The debate also raises the question of who is responsible for the controversial ads like the ones about cancer about economic collapse: Taboola or the publishers like Time and Huffington Post that host them, and enjoy a cut of the revenue when readers click on the “stories.”

7 Responses to “As paid “stories” about cancer and financial ruin flourish on the web, are better labels the answer?”

  1. If it’s good content and it provides value to the person clicking then the consumer will be satisfied whether it is paid or not. Let’s be clear: there is a big distinction between a native ad and true content which may be paid for. Adding disclosure is always a good thing and a positive step towards allowing people to understand that they are clicking on an ad. But this model also assumes that people will proactively interact but also, what about their feeling AFTER they click? You don’t really know what the content is until you click.

    Content marketing is a great trend that should be well respected as something that is a huge opportunity for our industry. It benefits the brand, publishes and most importantly, the audience. The issue I have with the image you show is that Taboola is showing people scammy ads masked as content. IMHO, this is the same thing as dancing Santas and pop under display ads.

    • The whole idea here, I think, is that there’s no clear cut.

      What makes an article a “content” rather than an “ad”? Isn’t any advertisement some kind of content? And if the publisher promotes his own **content**, does it automatically become an “ad”?! So is any link on the web an advertisement?… mmm

    • Totally disagree!

      Such a childish comment!! Who do you think pays for the content creation, servers etc.? Have you ever been involved with publishing content online?

      That’s rubbish. The publisher must generate revenues, and I for one prefer to be recommended with CONTENT rather than to be annoyed with pop-ups and malicious banners…….