Online advertorials worry watchdogs
Weather.com's decision earlier this month to start running advertorials for Scott's fertilizer--a first for that site--evidences the growing trend of online content paid for by sponsors, say online media experts.
And while the watchdogs say there's nothing inherently wrong with advertorials, they stress that publishers should clarify that the content is paid for. Without such disclaimers, they say, consumers will eventually lose confidence in the Web as a source of information.
"The public already perceives that advertisers have an influence on content," says Al Tompkins, who teaches broadcast and online journalism at The Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. The prevalence of advertorials, at least those without disclaimers, "only adds to the public skepticism that coverage is for sale," he says.
Traditional publishing associations such as the American Society of Magazine Editors issue guidelines stating that advertorials should be clearly marked as such. But Web-only publishers have yet to agree on any standards.
One reason, says Tom Regan, executive director of the Online News Association, is that it's relatively easy for magazines and newspapers to place the word "advertorial" on the same page as paid articles, because they can do so unobtrusively. It's harder to be clear--yet still low-profile--on the Web, where articles are often posted via a series of links. So far, says Regan, publishers have made advertorial policies on "an institution by institution basis."
Read the article: www.mediapost.com
