Native Advertising is sponsored content. Is this the way for online publishers?

Native Advertising or in other words, sponsored content, is proving a strong revenue earner for Media.

It is an ethical issue because it is "disguising" Ads, as non-commercial content and I for one, are seeing more and more "news" which is clearly paid for. So it will affect the reader "trust" of the brand.

The New York Times has called it the "driver" for its growth in online revenue last week, clearly indicating that there's a lot of it about.

Forbes have "Brand Voice" Ad options.

Sponsored Posts/Native commentary is over 30+ of LinkedIn's overall Ad revenue. Like their "sponsored updates". 

Tumblr are introducing similar "sponsored video posts".

The UK's Guardian is doing the same as are, most Irish online publishers.

It's euphemistically called "content marketing" but in reality it is PR dressed up as news. And that's an issue for the PR Industry because they may find that Clients will simply have to pay to have their brand stories appear. In fact it cuts across the very core as to what PR is about. Regrettably.

Traditional Broadcast Advertising to be fair, has at its core, a warning.

Called an 'Ad break', listeners and viewers clearly understand that at that part of the broadcast, someone is trying to sell them something (legitimately).

And Traditional Press Advertising is 'bordered' off from content so they're obviously Ads, not content.

So there must be, should be, some concerns raised about "native content" or sponsored content or whatever it's called designed to hide the fact, that it's advertising without a warning. And the very fact that they're trying to hide it by renaming it, in itself shows the concerns are already there.

But money is money I guess.

There must be questions raised too, by media owners themselves, that by "prostituting" their product in this way, could damage their trust amongst their consumers who may depart to other reliable publications.

Fundamentally, we all agree and want, online media to generate more revenue. Absolutely.

However, we should question, is this the way.

Without fear or favour - seems to me to be more favour than without.

Online Digital Video. You've made it, now what do you do with it?

There's a point about online video.
Once you've made it, what do you do with it?

According to Ad Age, General Electric put a video out online featuring Jeff Goldblum and within 24 hours, had 700,000 views (2 million today). Not bad, given that not a penny was spent on media promotion of it.

Notable too, is that it is over 2 minutes long (so none of your traditional 30 second messages) and the light bulb, sold out.

This is the exception though and not the rule. You can sit down and pray that things like that happen or you can help make it happen.

Creation of content is one part of the equation, distribution, another almost as vital.

Perhaps put in on YouTube's 'Trueview' Ads or Facebook's new auto-play video ads but perhaps too, place it on traditional online media such as news sites.

Paid for syndication or media buying, gets the video out there but it has to be good in the first instance, to get engagement and notably, sharing. 

However, the combination of both, creation and distribution, can be a lethally effective piece of marketing. You shouldn't have one without the other or at least, a clear understanding as to where the video is appearing.

Consider too, that in targeting different audiences, you may even cut/edit the video story differently to suit better, the audience watching it on different sites. One size doesn't always, fit all.

One thing for sure though. If you don't have an online video....you've no chance.

And Streamabout.com helps you do BOTH.

Nice one Guinness.

Have to say I like this.

Guinness, the "All Blacks" (geddit?) and just as we come up to the November Internationals.

Nevermind that it features Wardy (2 drop goals and a converted try) and there's hardly a nicer man to grace Irish Rugby.

Of course when you think Munster and think of this match, you think Mossy Keane. Nicknamed by team mates as 'The Exorcist'. Why? Because he never went home until all the spirits were gone.

Munster G. A. McLoughlin, P. C. Whelan, L. White, M. I. Keane, B. Foley, C. Cantillon, C. Tucker, D. E. Spring, D. Canniffe, A. J. P. Ward, J. Bowen, G. Barrett, S. Dennison, M. Finn, L. A. Moloney

New Zealand B. R. Johnstone, J. E. Black, G. A. Knight, F. J. Oliver, A. M. Haden, W. G. Graham, G. N. K. Mourie, A. A. McGregor, M. W. Donaldson, E. J. Dunn, B. G. Williams, J. L. Jaffray, B. J. Robertson, S. S. Wilson, B. J. McKechnie 

Television Advertising overtaken by Digital. It's in a death spiral.

Digital to overtake TV Ad spend in ALL US spending in 2016.

And that's not me saying it, it's respected researchers 'Forrester' as appearing in the Ad Industry "bible", Ad Age.

Wow.

They estimate it will hit 103 Billion Dollars in 2019 - 36% of all Ad spend whereas 86 Billion will be spent on TV Advertising. 

And why? Because digital works - with fundamental proof that's lacking in traditional Advertising.

Interesting too, 'Search' (SEO) budgets are starting to be capped. In other words, brands have spent whatever they're going to, on Search. Because once you've optimised Search, no further money is needed.

Mobile too will drive the spending switch as will Social Ads and of course, online digital video. Editing your TV Commercial just isn't as effective as native video.

So the long awaited budget switch is on.
Traditional Advertising is fast becoming unbalanced towards digital.
And TV Advertising,is well....... 

Publicis acquire Digital Sapient for 3.7 Billion. Today.

Publicis, one of the giants of the traditional Advertising Agency model and the Agency which failed to merge with Omnicom some months ago, has acquired a Digital Agency/Business, Sapient.

For 3.7 Billion usd in fact.

It's all cash at circa 25 dollars a share and creates 'Publicis Sapient' and through "integration" (job losses) between the two, claim to bring savings of 60 million a year. They also acquired 'Razorfish' recently.

Sapient started in 1990 and largely was seen as a tech company but this deal brings it more into mainstream marketing. It advised companies on IT but was seen as an early-adopter of the Web and a fairly "cool" google-esque style and structure.

What it shows again, is the role of the changing traditional Ad Agency where traditional media is now something of a futile pursuit. The money is in digital and the audience is in digital.

Publicis, whom I one-time represented, were very much in the traditional space and at least, they are moving more into digital using cash to do it. However, culture will always be an issue.

You can't just be seen to be in digital, you have to want to be.

But at least, they're recognising that and doing something about it. 
Good all round really.