Abstract
Native advertisements are one of the most ethically questioned strategies in digital communication. Some individuals can easily identify native advertisements while some minority groups like special needs or elderly may not be able to tell native advertisements apart from organic content. Native advertising began in magazines and newspapers before making a debut on social media sites, websites and smartphone applications. Native advertising’s popularity has grown, and so has the concern centered around its ethics. Media outlets must decide if it is their ethical responsibility to clearly label sponsored content or if the typically tiny printed word “sponsored” placed somewhere in the advertisement is an ethically sufficient way to alert people to an advertisement. However, media outlets must consider their obligations to their audience as well as their stakeholders. All publications are doing their best to generate revenue while upholding their beliefs and principles.
Dual responsibility theory is a revision of social responsibility theory. Dual responsibility theory acknowledges that communication professionals have an obligation to society to be transparent and professional and an obligation to their stakeholders to protect their organization’s bottom line. Native advertisements are controversial because some professionals argue that they are deceptive while others argue that the majority of the audience can identify native advertisements (Han et al., 2018). The Federal Trade Commission has mandated that sponsored content be disclosed as such, but only 63 percent of publishers followed that guideline as of 2019 (Li & Wang, 2019). Native advertising is a type of covert advertising; it is defined as the practice by which marketers or advertisers borrow the credibility of a publication by presenting content that mimics the publication’s original content (Wojdynski & Golan, 2016). When people first see a native advertisement, they may not immediately recognize it as sponsored content. When it is recognized as sponsored content, the audience often feels as though the publication has attempted to deceive them. When the audience feels deceived, they are less likely to interact with the ad and even less likely to spend money on the product or service. In contrast, when an audience feels as though the publication or platform has been transparent in disclosing sponsored content, people are more likely to interact with the advertisement. They also see the publication or platform as more credible. Dual responsibility theory states that advertisers operate in a way that will satisfy their obligation to society and their shareholders most of the time.
- Native advertising summary
Among the first native advertisements, was “Women Inmates,” a native advertisement produced by Netflix that ran in The New York Times (Deziel, 2014). The advertisement was written to look like a news article and blend in with the other content on The New York Time’s website. The advertisement was praised because it was seen as journalism that just also happened to be an advertisement for the Netflix series Orange is the New Black. The New York Times discloses that the article is an ad in a banner that runs across the top of the screen where most people will notice it even though the typography is not obtrusive. The article also never explicitly tells the audience to watch Orange is the New Black or even watch Netflix. However, not all native ads are received as well as this one was. The Atlantic published a native advertisement for the Church of Scientology that was designed to look like an article, but it was written as a hyper supportive press release. The backlash The Atlantic received for this misstep was fierce. Both publications published the native advertisement because of the revenue it brought their organization (Schauster et al., 2016).
- Dual responsibility model
Dual responsibility model is an updated version of social responsibility theory and stakeholder theory. Social responsibility theory is a combination of concepts created by the Hutchins Commission report. Social responsibility theory centers on the need for an independent press that examines organizations, provides objective and accurate reporting and fosters great communities (Baran & Davis, 2015). The Hutchins Commission tasked the press and digital communicators to gather the surface level facts and then delve deeper to gather the context and subtext.
Dennis McQuail summarized the basic principles of social responsibility theory. Media should accept and fulfill their obligations to society by sticking to high standards of professionalism (Baran & Davis, 2015). By applying these standards, the media should become self-regulating within the framework of the government. Media should avoid stories that will incite crime or violence. They should also encourage diversity and present a variety of views. The media should meet the expectations of society to be accurate and serve the public good. Lastly, media professionals should be accountable to society, employers, and the market. As the media advanced, the need for a more comprehensive model became apparent. The dual responsibility model includes First Amendment considerations of social responsibility theory as well as economic realities of the media’s corporate environment.
The dual responsibility model goes one step further by incorporating stakeholder theory and argues that the media need to acknowledge the financial aspect of journalism as well as their obligation to society. Bloom and Cleary argue that since more and more media are becoming consolidated, there is an even greater need to be transparent about sponsored content (2009). If a publication places a native advertisement, they must acknowledge it is an ad. The New York Times inserts a banner that is not present on non-sponsored content pages. This clearly alerts their readers that the information they are consuming is no longer produced by a New York Times reporter (Deziel, 2014).
- Dual responsibility model’s effect on native advertising
The dual responsibility model draws on the high standards set forth for media professionals by social responsibility theory and stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory allows for a wide variety of ethical business practices because not all stakeholders have an economic interest; stakeholders could include shareholders, communities, employees, advertisers, the Federal Communications Commission and others. Media professionals should be ethical and fulfill their obligation to society by being as truthful, accurate and transparent as possible in their organic content and advertisements. Media professionals must also satisfy their obligation to their shareholders. They do this by creating content people want to read, and by running advertisements that create income. Native advertising can create conflict for media professionals. Some native advertisements satisfy the obligation to the shareholder but not the audience. Native ads that are not clearly identified can be misleading. Media professionals should not intentionally mislead their audience. The dual responsibility model acknowledges the need for business and a responsibility to society in one framework. It also acknowledges the shift from considering if news is important to considering if the audience will interact with the story or not.
The Atlantic ran the native advertisement for the Church of Scientology (Carlson, 2015). The advertisement was marked in a yellow box near the top of the article and at the bottom of the article as sponsored content. However, people were still outraged, even though the advertisement was marked as an ad. There is not a clear-cut ethical reason the Church of Scientology’s native advertisement received harsh criticism. The Atlantic apologized for the incident by accepting fault and acknowledging that their readers were upset, see appendix. However, The Atlantic was vague in their statement because there was nothing specific that they did wrong. Even though the advertisement did read like a press release, it was labeled as sponsored content. Some people criticized The Atlantic not for the advertisement itself, but for accepting any form of advertisement from the Church of Scientology. More critics were concerned that the magazine allowed the Church of Scientology to create an advertisement that appeared at first glance to be organic content produced by Atlantic reporters. Others argued that the advertisement was acceptable if the copy had not read like propaganda, and the magazine should have requested the copy to be changed before running the advertisement. The Atlantic responded to the criticism with their apology, removal of the ad and a timeline of events that stated going forward they would label advertisements as “advertisements” to more clearly distinguish them from editorial content.
Native advertising, when done poorly, can call the credibility of the entire publication into question because the publication is seen as lending their credibility to the advertiser. James Fallows, a writer for The Atlantic, summed up the dual responsibility model’s effect on native advertising very well by saying all publications are attempting to remain a profitable business, and they are no exception while upholding their honor and principles (2013). It is difficult to find a balance between satisfying stakeholders and satisfying the readers’ need for total transparency all the time.
- Limitations of dual responsibility theory in the real world
The dual responsibility model is typically a useful model for the media to follow today. However, it does have limitations. The media cannot satisfy all of their stakeholders partly because it can be difficult to identify all of the stakeholders, which can include employees, owners, the community, shareholders and others. For example, a radio station has a set community it serves. Its community is determined by how far the signal reaches. Newspapers like The Denton Record Chronicle serve the Denton community. It is not as clear cut for other media like CNN that have a global audience. As the Church of Scientology’s native advertisement demonstrated, there can be conflict when attempting to satisfy the publication’s bottom line. Some instances may satisfy the stakeholders but not the social responsibilities of the media or vice versa.
Dual responsibility acknowledges the media’s need to satisfy their social and stakeholder responsibilities, but often the media focus more attention on satisfying their stakeholders. Dual responsibility is also overly optimistic about the media’s desire to meet social obligations. Since media professionals do not have to be licensed, there is not a standard teaching model in which they learn about dual responsibility theory. So, while many media professionals attempt to follow the dual responsibility model, there are media professionals that are not aware of its existence and were not trained to follow a code of ethics (Baran & Davis, 2015).
Native advertising can be an ethical source of income for many publications if media professionals follow the dual responsibility model. The model allows the media to consider their responsibility to the stakeholder and society. However, not all media professionals are trained to follow dual responsibility theory or a code of ethics. As technology advances, native advertisements are becoming more prominent on online news sites and social media, so it is becoming more critical for publications to consider their own ethics as well as their publication’s ethics when running a native advertisement.
References
Adams-Bloom, T., & Cleary, J. (2009). Staking a claim for social responsibility: An argument
for the dual responsibility model. The International Journal on Media Management, 11(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1080/14241270802518356
Baran, S. J., & Davis, D. K. (2015). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and
future (7th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Carlson, M. (2015). When news sites go native: Redefining the advertising- editorial divide in
response to native advertising. Journalism, 16(7), 849-865. DOI: 10.1177/1464884914545441
Fallows, J. (2013). On The Atlantic’s scientology ad (and aftermath). The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/on-the-atlantics-scientology-ad- and-aftermath/273447/
Han, J., Drumwright, M., & Goo, W. (2018). Native advertising: Is deception an asset or a
liability. Journal of Media Ethics, 33(3), 102-109. doi: 10.1080/23736992.2018.1477048
Li, Y., & Wang, Y. (2019). Brand disclosure and source partiality affect native advertising
recognition and media credibility. Newspaper Research Journal, 40(3), 299-316. doi: 10.1177/0739532919849472
Schauster, E.E., Ferrucci, P., & Neil, M.S. (2016). Native advertising is the new journalism:
How deception affects social responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1408- 1424. doi: 10.1177/0002764216660135
The Atlantic. (2013, January). Statement from The Atlantic. The Atlantic.
https://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=699462885& message_id=2459857&user_id=NJG_Atlan&group_id=0&jobid=12656579
Wodjdynski, B.W., & Golan, G.J. (2016). Native advertising and the future of mass
communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1403-1407. doi: 10.1177/0002764216660134
Appendix
The Atlantic’s Apology
We screwed up. It shouldn’t have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but it has — to alert us that we’ve made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way. It’s safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out. We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge–sheepishly–that we got ahead of ourselves. We are sorry, and we’re working very hard to put things right (The Atlantic, 2013).
karanmuns.com 