Options
Daily Mail online adverts disguised as news articles
Keiō Line
Posts: 12,979 Forum Member
✭✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2736975/Eczema-ruining-lives-never-slept-Mother-wit-s-end-son-s-skin-condition-discovers-cure-worked-just-DAYS.html
In recent months the DM (and other online sources) have been using these type of ads more and more.
I don't accept that "everyone should know what they are", I showed it to a couple of people and they all thought it was genuine "news" article.
I accept that sometimes the message that "this is a paid for advertisement"(TV) or "advertizing feature" (news print) is shown when its bloody obvious its an ad, but its there for a purpose.
However in this case its pretty sick deceiving readers some of whome will be at there wits ends over an agony that inflicts their child.
In recent months the DM (and other online sources) have been using these type of ads more and more.
I don't accept that "everyone should know what they are", I showed it to a couple of people and they all thought it was genuine "news" article.
I accept that sometimes the message that "this is a paid for advertisement"(TV) or "advertizing feature" (news print) is shown when its bloody obvious its an ad, but its there for a purpose.
However in this case its pretty sick deceiving readers some of whome will be at there wits ends over an agony that inflicts their child.
0
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network-outbrain-partner-zone/native-advertising-quality-scalability
Your ever so clever.
Thanks for this. Just googled "native advertizing" and come up with some interesting articles. Tend to agree with this point in the guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/mar/10/native-advertising-engage-consumers-transparent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc
The company used to be Salcura. They are doing a rebrand which was stated on their website. Being changed to Bioskin junior. Probably to highlight it can be used on kids.
Its a great brand, i use many of their products. I have spent a fortune on skincare and their zeoderm was a miracle for me!
But I still read it in my lunch break
I've always taken the view that any ads where such a label is necessary should be banned as misleading. My dislike of advertising is pretty well known though.
What's more disturbing is things like the Guardian's "partnership" with Unilever: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/13/the-guardian-now-shares-values-with-unilever/
Normally such ads are marked as such, even though its always pretty obvious and sometimes feels patronizing to do so. While forum member Hieronymous (he is ever so clever) can spot them a mile off (he has NEVER been fooled, and he knows that for a fact!!!), I would say this ad is pushes the boundaries of acceptability. Not only is the the fact its an ad well hidden, it also deals with a medical condition that affects thousands of babies and children.
I appreciate the newspapers need to make money and "free content" is killing them.
Oh, I know, it's irony. :kitty:
If your GP got paid to promote a product for your use, rather than the optimal treatment, without even disclosing the fact he was being financially rewarded by the company, the article's defenders here would presumably be happy with that. Because essentially that is what is going on here.
It is incumbent on a newspaper to CLEARLY distinguish between chronicling (health) news and paid copy.
It's sad, and worrying, that one publisher has recently sought to judge the quality of their staff on how appealing articles are to advertisers. The barriers are now well and truly gone, and 'journalists' today are expected to think about the commercial success of anything they write, and indeed the impact of writing something controversial.
In my experience, some publishing directors will proudly say that writers aren't under any pressure, but then have quiet words with writers or even pull articles that the editor might have approved - and all because it will annoy a company/agency or a particular person that could cost the firm money.
As long as we have websites giving content for free, funded purely through advertising, we'll get this more and more. Ultimately, to get proper funded journalism with no bias and no tricks, we need to start paying for content. Then things can go back to the old days where an advertisers started to threaten a publisher, and was told to go stick it. The magazine/newspaper cover price covered all the printing and staff costs, and the advertising was the profit. So, while you didn't want to lose profit unnecessarily, you were in a position to let one advertiser pull out and get replaced with another and not feel that at any point you were suddenly going to lose money, have to lay off staff etc.
The other thing the DM is now doing loads of is celebrity articles to sell clothing. Most of the 'candid' photo stories are clearly well organised, so Z-list celeb decides to have a picnic in a park on their own, and a cameraman is stealthily hidden all of a couple of metres away... and then the story gives the celeb what they want (coverage) and the DM gets to show that what she's wearing is now available to buy here..
They're not even marked as advertorials.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2749597/All-hail-iPhone-6-iPhone-6-Plus-Apple-reveals-generation-handsets.html
I know newspapers tend to cut and paste press releases uncritical, but it is a major story (like it or not), and there is nothing negative in the article such as pointing out the "ever thinner" is half a mm. It also has other selling points that would not normally be in press releases.