This conversation is closed.
Is Native Advertising a good thing?
Native advertising seems to be the new, hot advertising trend, and so seems like a great combination of T, E, and D. With the New York Times recently jumping on the native ad band wagon, it seems this has finally become mainstream. (See http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-debuts-native-ad-units-dell/290973/.)
It's not just the NYT though. Native ads are now appearing all over Facebook, twitter, and other mainstream places.
The issue up for debate, is whether native advertising will actually change anything, especially in any sort of positive way. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is looking hard at this issue, making sure people know when they're looking at an ad.
You could argue native advertising isn't new at all. In 1917, the FTC settled a case with the Muensen Speciality Co. over an ad for its vacuum cleaner, which it presented as a favourable newspaper review. It was the first case where native advertising was identified by regulation in the US.
Will people become used to blocking out native ads the same way you're used to blocking out banner ads today? Or will advertisers be called to "up their game" and create content that people want to experience (maybe like the Superbowl ads)? If you don't want to see ads at all, would you pay for the sites that are currently supporting themselves on advertising revenue?