Do you think that brands paying for their name to be associated with articles does not influence the content and quality of the journalism?
Do you think a series about solar energy sponsored by BP is not going to be less critical of BP?
While the distinction you make is valid in theory, it requires a legitimate firewall between advertisers and journalists, a safeguard that is in rapid decline in most places.
Personally, I presume any sponsored content is influenced by the sponsor.
The intent is that it does not influence the content and quality of the journalism. How well that is actually maintained is up to the sales and editorial teams striking the deal, of course.
A good team won't take a deal that will tie their hands; if BP says "We want a solar energy series, but you can't say anything bad about us", then that deal isn't likely to be struck. We might pitch them on an alternate series that doesn't risk putting them in the crosshairs, but letting the brand have any say in the content is a big no-no, and the sales team works to try to find advertising opportunities that work well with advertisers, rather than working against them.
Just personally, I think it's healthy to assume that any sponsored content is influenced by the sponsor, but I don't think it's valid to write off any content that happens to have a sponsorship attached to it as invalid, inaccurate, or biased. Be suspicious, but equating native advertising with PR dronespeak is flawed.
I think you should be suspicious with any content, sponsored or not. Always check multiple sources before forming and opinion.
In my opinion, an article that is influenced by the political view of the writer or the editor is exactly as bad or good as influenced by a sponsor. Even if it's not on purpose. I once had a long talk with a journalist friend about how it's almost impossible to write a completely objective article because so many things influence how the story is perceived. Like the order in which two sides of an event are presented.
I think native advertising has great potential and I hope media companies that do it deceptively will be punished by their users. But i guess that's naive, since people don't really do that with those whose editorial content is just wrong and or inflammatory.
BP wouldn't say "we want a solar energy series but you can't say anything bad about us".
They'd say "we want a solar energy series, and we might want another in three months depending on results". The writers would simply not bite the hand that feeds them.
BP doesn't talk to the writers; they talk to sales. The hand that feeds the writers is very specifically not the advertiser. I can't speak for other companies, but our sales team is good enough to recognize that an alternative energy series sponsored by BP is ripe with potential for conflict, and would likely steer them in a different direction.
I really do hear what you're saying, and I 110% agree that it's a legitimate concern. If I saw a post on solar energy sponsored by BP, I'd be looking for the hook, too. That's why you need a good business development and sales team; recognizing those conflicts and working around them before they become an issue is a critical component in making this kind of thing actually work.
So they talk to a "Branded Editor" who writes the intro and then you post it as a series of native articles which is just marketing content straight from Home Depot.
It seems BP would be able to do the same thing which is effectively identical.
Maybe this seems fine to you but it doesn't to me.
It is one thing to have what are essentially links to other sites as "native advertising" its quite another to let them shill on your site. Imo anyway.
This is standard business development - mutually-beneficial partnerships which result in business gains for both parties involved. The series you linked is, IMO, a pretty decent example of native advertising. Original content was produced, the partnership with Home Depot was very clearly and loudly disclosed, at no point were there "Here are the links to the Home Depot(R) items you need to build these things, go buy them" links stuffed into the content, and the content is related to Home Depot's business (and may in fact incentivize people to go to Home Depot to buy things, the horror!) and yet is not "Home Depot is the best, Lowes sux, go buy all your stuff at Home Depot".
To let a brand "shill on your site" is called advertising. It's fine to hate it, but it is what it is. At question here isn't the practice, but rather, the degree to which it's made clear to the reader what is advertiser-produced and what is not, and the question of whether advertising copy is being pitched as not-advertising or not.
FWIW, my experience is the opposite. Reporters are so worried about the appearance of bias that they sometimes avoid writing good stories about companies who happen to be advertisers.
Do you think a series about solar energy sponsored by BP is not going to be less critical of BP?
While the distinction you make is valid in theory, it requires a legitimate firewall between advertisers and journalists, a safeguard that is in rapid decline in most places.
Personally, I presume any sponsored content is influenced by the sponsor.