Possibility of native ads on pubradio sparks concern

By Ben Mook

DENVER — A public radio station’s foray into native advertising, which seamlessly integrates paid content into a website’s editorial fare, stirred strong opinions at a July 10 session at the annual Public Media Development & Marketing Conference.

Attendees packed the room to hear about plans for native advertising on the site of Southern California Public Radio in Pasadena, Calif. The broadcaster received a $33,000 grant in April from the Investigative News Network and the Knight Foundation to experiment with native advertising, also known as sponsored content.

Over the six-month pilot stage, which ends in December, SCPR will develop a native-advertising framework for online and mobile platforms. “SCPR believes that the framework emerging from this grant will map out the common ground between the interests of its audience, underwriters, and journalistic principles,” INN said in a statement about the grant when it was announced. “At its conclusion, the organization will be much closer to determining whether sponsored content is a viable revenue stream for mission-driven, nonprofit content producers.”

According to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, native advertising encompasses “paid ads that are so cohesive with the page content, assimilated into the design, and consistent with the platform behavior that the viewer simply feels that they belong.”

In experimenting with native advertising, SCPR joins nonprofits Voice of San Diego and the Texas Tribune, which began placing native ads on their websites this year. The Tribune’s native advertising is labeled as “paid content” and appears in TribTalk, a section of the website set apart from editorial content.

“You may see some columns clearly labeled as ‘paid placement’ and visually differentiated to prevent readers from confusing them with independent editorial content,” the Tribune says on its website. “These columns are produced by corporate supporters of the Tribune who contract with its business staff to post them on TribTalk. They’re the digital equivalent of ‘advertorials’ you’ve seen in newspapers and magazines for decades.”

Such advertising provides an innovative way to bring in new revenue, said SCPR Digital Media Director Alex Schaffert-Callaghan at the PMDMC. Other sources of revenue in pubmedia, such as foundation funds, also require stations to be careful about undue influence, she said.

“It’s all about striking a balance,” she said.

Digital ads make up about 10 percent of SCPR’s underwriting revenue. “That does not a business model for the future make,” Callaghan said. “So we have to shake things up a little bit. We have to innovate a little bit. But not to the point where we are damaging our credibility.”

Harry Clark, g.m. of corporate underwriting and integrated media sponsorships at New York Public Radio, said the station has been approached about native advertising. Audiences are intelligent enough to discern sponsored content from other content, he said.

Advertisers are not trying to hoodwink the audience, Clark said, but are rather looking for a way to leverage the goodwill stations have with listeners and viewers.

“No one comes out and says, ‘We want native ads,’” Clark said. “They say, ‘We want something custom that our audience will react to.’”

But, he said, pubcasters pursuing native advertising should not give up too much in pursuit of revenue.

“Control needs to live at the station,” Clark said. “There should be veto control.”

Others at the session sounded a more cautionary note. Native advertising has huge potential to undermine public media’s reputation, said Morgan Holm, vice president of news and public affairs at Oregon Public Broadcasting.

“One thing we don’t want to lose sight of is the core value of trust,” Holm said. If pubcasters start blurring lines and cause audience members to wonder about who wrote or signed off on ads, “we might lose some trust,” he said.

Because online advertising is not subject to FCC regulations, “theoretically, we can do whatever we want,” Holm said. “The question is, just because we can, should we?”

Holm also cautioned that native advertising might make listeners feel less essential to stations’ fundraising efforts. “We spend a lot of time on the air telling the audience it’s their support that keeps us going,” he said. “Do we really want to monkey with that?”

John Barth, managing director of Public Radio Exchange, warned colleagues about native advertising, which he said was discussed at AOL when he worked for the company. “Be extremely careful,” said Barth, who specified that he was not speaking on behalf of PRX. “You think you’re playing with a new toy that’ll generate revenue. It sure will, and at the end of that pipe is a real danger with your audience.”

“Our job is to make sure journalism and news is in a pure space,” he added.

In response, Callaghan said that the New York Times recently used native advertising effectively by allowing Netflix to promote the series Orange Is the New Black in tandem with a reported piece about women in prisons. The newspaper had not sold native ads prior to this year.

“In a situation like that, the audience wins and the advertiser wins,” Callaghan said.

Callaghan also asked attendees to consider whether their digital ads were selling well enough and providing the best experience to visitors.

“We’re trying this out not so much because we think this is the ultimate answer, but we’re trying it because we think there has to be some innovation,” Callaghan said. “Digital ads are not really working all that well.”

  • Luis Gomez

    I think this quote needs to have the word ‘make’ placed between ‘not’ and ‘a': “That does not a business model for the future make,” Callaghan said.

    • http://about.me/mike.janssen Mike Janssen

      It’s actually correct — it’s sort of a fancy way of saying “That does not make a business model for the future.”

      It’s actually called “hyperbaton,” as I just discovered Googling.

      http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/hyperbatonterm.htm

  • urbanviking

    Leveraging the good will….. that is not a statement I would volunteer to defend.

  • https://flipboard.com/profile/DarwinEvolved David Gregory

    Paid placement = bought and paid for content = untrustworthy content = no more personal support for public broadcasting or tax exempt status.

    What part of noncommercial, public media do you not understand? Get the moneychangers out of the temple.

  • Gavin Dahl

    Mike, you have underplayed the potent opposition to native advertising in that room of public media professionals. Instead you make it sound more like an edgy exciting experiment. Trust means not tricking people or putting sponsorship before listenership. I’m not the only one in the room who heard Callaghan say “how do we balance our core values” not “it’s all about striking a balance.” I appreciate that you covered the story but grave doubts about the harm to public media expressed in that room deserve a more prominent depiction than you’ve published here.

    • http://about.me/mike.janssen Mike Janssen

      Hi Gavin — we stand by the accuracy of that quotation. We had double-checked it during the editing process for this article. It’s possible that Callaghan also said something similar to the quote you cite at another point in her presentation. Also, it appears that maybe you thought I wrote the article, but it was actually written by our reporter Ben Mook.

      • Gavin Dahl

        Yeah I bet you’re right that she made related comments more than once. Balancing core values… yuck. Thanks for responding and yeah, obviously that’s Ben’s name on the story. Glad Current was in the room, too!

  • Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] SCPR sets rigorous ethical firewall for ‘native advertising’ | Journo.biz

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT