Writing for Time.com, Chartbeat CEO Tony Haile says that while 71 percent of surfers will stick with a “real” article for more than 15 seconds, that number drops to 24 percent for native ad stuff. “What this suggests is that brands are paying for — and publishers are driving traffic to — content that does not capture the attention of its visitors or achieve the goals of its creators,” Haile says.Advertisers love the idea of “native ads” — marketing messages, that sort of look like “real” content — because they think that Web surfers who ignore other ads will pay attention to the new format. However, consumers are pretty damn smart when it comes content and they don’t want native ads which they see as an oxymoron.
Native Ads = Paid Endorsements?
The Federal Trade Commission said Thursday that it had settled its charges against home security firm ADT for allegedly paying safety and technology experts to endorse its online home monitoring system on NBC’s “Today” show and in other media outlets without disclosing the financial arrangements.
ADT allegedly paid Safetymom.com blogger Alison Rhodes and David Gregg, who runs consumer guide Behindthebuy.com, more than $300,000 to act as spokesmen for an online monitoring system that can be controlled by smartphones and other devices. At no time in their appearance on NBC and during their 40 other radio and television spots did they mention that they were being paid by the Boca Raton, Fla., company to endorse the products.
In consumers eyes are native ads the same as paid endorsements? The answer to that is probably yes. Advertisers are still trying to find a way to interrupt consumers while they surf the web but more and more consumers are saying “leave me alone”. Does this mean online ads are dead? No, not at all it means that brands have to test online ads with the same scrutiny as offline ads. If the online ad is relevant and engaging it will warrant consumers’ attention, if not it just become a billboard.