Native Advertising: The Truth About Truth

The impending merger of media giants Omnicom and Publicis has brought the conversation about truth in advertising, and advertising ethics, to the forefront of public discussion. Along with concerns about antitrust laws, there is a concern about the effect that this merger will have on advertising ethics, and how it will affect the consumer. I wanted to take some time to look more deeply into the issue, and find out exactly what, if any, legislation exists around evolving advertising practices like native advertising.

The laws about truth in advertising, at least the very basics, are fairly well known to the average consumer. As a former service and retail employee I can attest to that fact, as you will be called out if something was priced wrong on the shelf or menu. But how does that familiar, traditional advertising rule-book translate into the world of digital and native advertising?

To answer this question, I had to do some research through the Better Business Bureau, the FTC and some industry regulatory entities. According to .com Disclosures, “The same consumer protection laws that apply to commercial activities in other media apply online, including activities in the mobile marketplace.” That seems fairly clear, but what if the content isn’t clearly labeled as a paid promotion? Things considered native marketing — content creation, influencer marketing, etc. — that may not be covered under the “advertising” umbrella? Bonnie Patten, executive director of TruthInAdvertising.org, described the unique problem with native advertising: “Native advertising, such as paid search results, presents a danger to consumers who may not be able to easily identify it as advertising, especially when the ads drive users to third-party sites. TINA believes that native advertising should be clearly marked as ads so that consumers can make an informed decision before they click.“

As we’ve seen lately, practices online aren’t always the most transparent. A recent article byJohn H. Bell on LinkedIn describes a few different situations of Twitter hacking, listing the fake Twitter hack that Chipotle used to help garner more attention and social followers, as being dubious at best. Then there are cases like this one cited by Adam Kleinberg where not only is the ad irrelevant, but the sponsor isn’t properly noted. Or, as he goes on to explain, some ads that are just plain “tricky”.

So what exactly can be done to maintain our industry’s reputation online, while still being effective, and not deceiving or misleading consumers? The FTC makes it pretty clear in .com Disclosures: Hot to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising that if a claim is conditionally true, or the experience isn’t “typical” to all users, this needs to be conspicuously displayed as either part of the messaging or in a nearby disclaimer. The same rules apply to endorsements. According to their endorsement guides, “Endorsements must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser. Furthermore, an endorsement may not convey any express or implied representation that would be deceptive if made directly by the advertiser.”

These guidelines make the rules pretty clear — native content is still advertising content. If you are working with a blogger to promote your product, they need to make that clear to their audience. Essentially, the views that they publicly promote to their audience will be evaluated under the same scrutiny that they would be had your company made the claims itself. So, if you’re compensating an influential blogger, social media personality, or any other influencer for talking about your brand, that information needs to be clearly disclosed.

The idea that native advertising isn’t traditional advertising doesn’t fly with the FTC, or the BBB for that matter. Karen Thompson, the advertising review manager for the Better Business Bureau of Minnesota and North Dakota, explained her position on the subject: “of course, any advertising needs to follow the same rules and guidelines as traditional advertising. Native advertising (as I understand it) while similar to advertorials, seeks to persuade consumers. IMHO, it’s even more important that the facts be correct and substantiated, and the claims be transparent and truthful.” She later commented that she believes that the FTC is going to be “looking ever more carefully at online advertising.” If you’re wondering about how the BBB helps business stay on the ethical and legal side of advertising, take a look at the services that they provide, like prior to publication advertising review.

Non-advertising organizations like the BBB and FTC aren’t the only ones who see native advertising as a potential problem area. According to the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s website, there are task forces being created for both content marketing and native advertising. In a news release on their page, they gave the following statement: “IAB is excited to announce the fruition of two new taskforces to set parameters, create best practices and standards around the ever changing channels of content marketing and native advertising. [...] The Native Advertising Task Force is being led by Dan Greenberg of Sharethrough and Patrick Albano of Yahoo! IAB members will define, once and for all, what ‘native advertising’ is.  In doing so this will define what ‘native advertising’ isn’t, as well as the overlap with “Content Marketing”, if any.”

This is a new world for advertising. We can’t sit back and wait for explicit regulations telling us what exactly we can or cannot do, what level of trickery is acceptable and what isn’t. Whether or not we like it, our industry is transparent. The guidelines shouldn’t need to exist for us to follow them. As marketers, we should be setting the standard for ourselves. This establishes consumer trust in both your brand, and the advertising industry as a whole. It’s that kind of brand reputation that will get your company noticed, respected, and trusted.