American Behavioral Scientist
2016, Vol. 60(12) 1408­–1424
© 2016 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0002764216660135
abs.sagepub.com
Article
Native Advertising Is the New
Journalism: How Deception
Affects Social Responsibility
Erin E. Schauster1, Patrick Ferrucci1,
and Marlene S. Neill2
Abstract
Native advertising’s effectiveness lies in its ability to look like content produced by
journalists. The potential for deceiving readers and proliferation of native advertising
threaten journalism’s credibility along with its core boundary: the separation
between editorial and advertising. For the press to function in a normative manner,
as a watchdog, contributing to the public’s ability to self-govern, it simply cannot
participate in deception. Therefore, 56 qualitative interviews were conducted with
journalists, advertising, and public relations executives to examine the extent to
which native advertising impedes on the social responsibility of the press. Perspectives
revealed that all three professions agreed native advertising raises ethical concerns.
Native advertising potentially deceives audiences who are unaware that native
advertising is paid, persuasive content versus editorial, thus contributing to the
diminishing credibility of journalism. Furthermore, if native advertising is done well,
it is undetectable from traditional editorial content. Based on these findings, authors
discuss how native advertising threatens several tenets of social responsibility theory.
Keywords
native advertising, sponsored content, in-depth interviews, journalism
When readers logged onto The New York Times website on June 13, 2014, they were
greeted by a story titled “Women Inmates: Why the Male Model Doesn’t Work.”
Many prominent journalists praised the piece, calling it everything from “impressively
produced” to “stellar journalism” (Moses, 2014). But this multiplatform
1University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
2Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Erin E. Schauster, University of Colorado Boulder, UCB 478, Boulder, CO 80309-0401, USA.
Email: erin.schauster@colorado.edu
660135ABSXXX10.1177/0002764216660135American Behavioral ScientistSchauster et al.
research-article2016
Schauster et al.	 1409
story was not like typical journalism published by the iconic newspaper. It was
among the first native advertisements produced by T Brand Studios, the Times’
nine-person team dedicated to producing content for brands (Sebastian, 2014a).
“Women inmates” was produced in coordination with Netflix. While the Netflix
and Orange Is the New Black logos appeared on the story, the actual piece was an
impeccably reported expose on women in prison that could stand on its own as a
piece of quality journalism (Lazauskas, 2014). And while the media company
received some negative backlash for running the story, the vast majority of feedback
was positive, as many considered it akin to journalism, just sponsored journalism
(Sebastian, 2014a).
About 18 months prior, The Atlantic entered the native advertising game and the
backlash was quick and merciless (Fallows, 2013). Readers clicked on a story about
Scientology expecting a journalistic examination into the controversial religion and
instead found a native advertisement “from the Church of Scientology that resembled
little more than a chirpy press release” (Carlson, 2015b, p. 860).
Both media organizations published the sponsored content because its revenue
combats the downturn in advertising revenue facing news organizations (Couldry &
Turow, 2014). But the proliferation of native advertising threatens the core norm of
journalism: the separation between editorial and advertising. Often described as “the
wall,” this boundary is “so fundamental to the self-understanding of professional journalism,
it’s thoroughly understood as a cultural and occupational assumption”
(Coddington, 2015, p. 67). In fact, even iconic news publisher Joseph Pulitzer, speaking
back in the late 19th century, remarked that journalism’s downfall could be the
inherent tension between its goals for editorial excellence versus its goals for profit
(Schudson, 1978). To work in its normative manner, journalists need the ability to
produce content without interference from advertisers (Christians, Glasser, McQuail,
Nordenstreng, & White, 2009).
One key to native advertising’s effectiveness lies in its ability to look like content
produced by journalists, thus giving the sponsored content a form of credibility earned
by journalists (Carlson, 2015b). This can, however, erode the credibility of journalism
over time (Levi, 2015) affecting not only the boundaries or journalism but also the
social responsibility of the press. Through the lens of social responsibility theory and
using qualitative interviews with journalists, advertising, and public relations professionals,
this article will analyze how each industry’s professionals view native advertising
and how they believe it should function.
Literature Review
Boundaries of Journalism
In journalism studies, disagreements concern varying definitions of boundaries (Lewis,
2015). As noted by Carlson (2015a), “ . . . who counts as a journalist, what counts as
journalism, what is appropriate journalistic behavior, and what is deviant—are all matters
to be comprehended through the perspective of boundary work” (p. 2). When we
1410	 American Behavioral Scientist 60(12)
study boundaries, we get at the heart of the profession and can start to understand why
journalism appears as it does (Fakazis, 2006).
But among the many boundaries of journalism, none is more important than the
boundary between editorial and advertising (Schudson, 2013). “Unlike many other
boundaries, scholars . . . tend to agree with journalists that this boundary should indeed
exist” (Coddington, 2015, p. 67). Even in the earliest days of journalism, many wondered
if journalists could effectively uphold their mission of sustaining democracy
while under the influence of advertisers (Baldasty, 1992). From the days of the penny
presses, when publishers began to understand the robust profit that could be earned
through advertising, scholars have often argued that commercial interests can have
both direct and indirect effects on journalism (i.e., Bagdikian, 2004; Baldasty, 1992;
McManus, 1994), but this influence is the antithesis of what the press needs to produce:
journalism that fosters democracy (Christians et al., 2009). For decades, journalism
organizations set up a literal wall between its editorial departments and its
business-minded departments, a wall meant to “maintain vigilance over some of the
very advertisers whose expenditures keep news organizations viable” (Kaye & Quinn,
2010, p. 127).
Publishers and editors built this boundary, this wall between editorial and advertising,
out of fear that the need to earn capital would have an influence in reporting, that
the need for economic viability would lead journalists to directly and indirectly adapt
norms and routines to serve advertisers’ interests and not the interests of citizens
(Baker, 1994). Nothing is more sacred to the journalist than professional autonomy; a
journalist’s goal is to research and report on something without nonjournalistic interference
(Weaver, Beam, Brownlee, Voakes, & Wilhoit, 2007). Commercial interests
negatively affect journalistic autonomy (Coddington, 2015).
Journalists have continued to fight for and maintain some hold over autonomy,
despite the shift from the press’s political patronage model of funding to the current
advertising-based model (Altschull, 1997). Yet the boundary between editorial and
advertising is becoming more porous, (Pompilio, 2009), and “the days when journalists
could remain willfully ignorant about commercial operations” are over (Kaye &
Quinn, 2010, p. 128). No single thing is more at fault than native advertising (Levi,
2015).
The problem with this blurring boundary lies in goals (Moore, 2014). Journalists
often shield themselves from financial pressures and produce news aimed at informing
citizens and strengthening democracy (Christians et al., 2009). However, advertisers
and public relations professionals, the people mostly responsible for producing native
content, do not share the same goals of journalists. These differing goals and their
effects on the practice of journalism have caused such consternation that the Federal
Trade Commission held a conference called “Blurred Lines” to discuss native advertising’s
lack of transparency and “clear” aim to trick readers (Levi, 2015). One way to
understand how these different media professionals—journalists, advertising, and
public relations professionals—approach the concept of native advertising is to examine
how these professionals understand the social responsibility of the press (Christians
& Nordenstreng, 2004).
Schauster et al.	 1411
Social Responsibility Theory
Yellow journalism of the late 19th century threatened the notions of accuracy and
objectivity. As a result, audiences demanded that media set and act in accordance with
professional standards. In response to these threats, and to avoid regulation, media
practitioners began to show greater concern for the public good and establish ethical
standards (Siebert, Peterson, & Schramm, 1956). One example of these initiatives was
The Hutchins Commission on Freedom of the Press, which was established in 1942 to
make recommendations concerning the role and responsibility of the press (Baran &
Davis, 2012). In response to the commission, social responsibility theory was developed
and serves as a normative, ethical guide for what ought to be done in response to
changing media practices. To achieve social responsibility, the press must maintain six
criteria: (a) serve the political system with information, and with forums for debate
and discussion; (b) assist the public in self-governance; (c) act as the government
watchdog; (d) serve the economic system with advertising; (e) provide entertainment;
and (f) maintain sufficient financial independence, free from the pressure of special
interests (Siebert et al., 1956).
Today, as media practices, platforms and models change, journalists’ duties are
changing. Singer (2006) proposed that some duties ought to remain constant and that
journalists ought to serve as “socially responsible existentialists,” which refers to a
journalist who chooses to act as a trustworthy source of information that serves the
public interest. Social responsibility theory outlines several other tenets underlying
journalists’ duties, which include professionalism, composed of expertise, commitment,
responsibility, and autonomy; criticism from professionals and the public; professional
and public interaction; freedom and responsibility; service to society; and
government support (Anderson, 1977).
As duties change, scholars have examined the extent to which journalism upholds
the tenets of social responsibility. While Anderson (1977) found that news editors
predominately upheld professionalism, Christians and Nordenstreng (2004) argued
that social responsibility of the press goes beyond professionalism and suggested that
social responsibility should be discussed in global terms. From a global perspective,
the authors suggested that the universal principles guiding social responsibility
should be rooted in human life and civilization, and therefore proposed the following
tenets: respect for human dignity, truth telling, and nonviolence. Deuze (2005) suggested
the importance between social responsibility and the concept of credibility. He
argued that without credibility, both an industry-wide credibility and a specific organization’s
credibility, the press cannot uphold the tenets of social responsibility theory.
Amid the abundance of native advertising today, the potential for deception is
heightened. In one study, 67% felt deceived on learning an article was sponsored by
a brand and 59% of respondents perceived news sites with sponsored content as less
credible (Lazauskas, 2014).
There are multiple organizations involved in planning, writing, and placing native
ads, which influences any one organization’s willingness to take ethical responsibility,
which Murphy (1998) referred to as the “unholy trinity.” Similarly, Drumwright and
1412	 American Behavioral Scientist 60(12)
Murphy (2004) referred to this unwillingness among advertising executives as “passing
the buck” or shifting ethical responsibility. By comparison, public relations practitioners
undertake socially responsible initiatives by upholding professional duties and
obligations to the various publics they serve (Fitzpatrick & Gauthier, 2001). Therefore,
this study asked members of these multiple organizations, journalists, advertising, and
public relations practitioners, what are their perceptions of native advertising and what
are the ethical implications of these practices to examine the extent to which native
advertising impedes on the social responsibility of the press.
Method
The current study utilized in-depth interviews. Ethics is considered a sensitive topic,
which Davis (2012) recommends is best examined with qualitative research. In-depth
interviews were chosen for the deeper level of detail the method provides (Hatzios &
Lariscy, 2008). Qualitative interviews also explore and expose interpretations, which
allow common themes to arise between particular types of respondents (Warren,
2002). Interviews have been used to examine journalism, advertising, and public relations
ethics, including industry and academic leaders’ perspectives on the state of ethics
(Drumwright & Murphy, 2009), characteristics of ethical leadership in public
relations (Lee & Cheng, 2012), and moral exemplars in journalism and public relations
(Plaisance, 2015). Fifty-six interviews were conducted with journalists (n = 30),
advertising executives (n = 11), public relations executives (n = 14), and a digital
marketing executive (n = 1).
Participants
Participants were selected using purposive sampling. Digital journalists affiliated with
the Online News Association were contacted, marketing communication (marcom)
executives with several years of experience, and in the researchers’ personal network,
were contacted and asked for referrals. Marcom executives worked full-time in advertising,
public relations, or digital marketing with a range of 4 to 40 years of experience.
The 26 marcom executives represented 17 different regional, national, and international
organizations. Journalists worked full-time in digital journalism. Researchers
interviewed digital journalists because the vast majority of native advertising is online,
with estimates upward of 90% (Greenwood, 2015), and some definitions of the term
“native advertising” only include digitally native ads (Interactive Advertising Bureau,
2015). The 30 journalists had a range of 6 months to 34 years of experience and represented
30 different organizations, including traditional outlets such as The New York
Times, digitally native organizations such as Buzzfeed, and digitally native news nonprofits
such as the Colorado Independent. Participants were treated in accord with
institutional review board procedures. The researchers also promised all informants
anonymity and confidentiality; therefore, excerpts in the findings are identified by
discipline versus title (e.g., journalist, advertising or public relations executive) and
gender pronouns were assigned randomly.
Schauster et al.	 1413
Interview Process and Analysis
All 56 participants were asked about their perceptions of native advertising and the
ethical nature of native advertising. The interview protocol consisted of broad, openended
questions meant to stimulate long and detailed answers to the questions
(McCracken, 1988). Questions included “What are some of the ethical issues related
to the media practices we discussed today?” “What are your perceptions regarding
native advertising?” “How would you describe the ethical nature of native advertising?”
and “Do you think consumers understand the differences between these new
forms of advertising such as native advertising and news?”
Three researchers conducted interviews respective to their professional background
in journalism, advertising, and public relations. Due to barriers of proximity and convenience,
52 interviews were conducted by phone and 4 were conducted in person.
Averaging 48 minutes, interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis.
Two researchers then independently coded journalism transcripts and marcom transcripts.
The first step was open coding, which involved identifying content concerning
native advertising, including advertorials and sponsored content, and the ethical nature
of native advertising. Next, each researcher wrote memos to identify themes, comprising
the first stage of focused coding. Researchers then discussed and finalized themes,
comprising the second stage of focused coding. Verbatim text related to the finalized
themes was copied into a comprehensive coding sheet, which was used to organize
and write findings.
Findings
Perspectives shared by journalists, advertising, and public relations executives
revealed their agreement that native advertising raises ethical concerns. Primarily,
native advertising is deceptive: Transparency is lacking and, as a result, readers are
unaware that native advertising is paid, persuasive content versus editorial content.
Journalists also broached the subject of diminishing credibility of journalism and
native advertising’s contributing role. Simultaneously, participants acknowledged the
economic benefits of native advertising. Simply put, native advertising generates revenue.
Some marcom executives suggested native advertising was a beneficial, storytelling
tool, and provided examples of good native advertising. Finally, due to the
various people involved, some participants suggested others, versus themselves, are
ethically responsible.
Deception
A majority of participants, journalists, and marcom executives alike, found native
advertising to be unethical for two overarching reasons. First, native advertising is
deceptive by nature and, second, native advertising is unethical because readers cannot
decipher what is editorial content versus the paid placement of advertising. Journalists
referred to the practice as “lies” and “fake stories” used to “trick” or “fool people,” and
1414	 American Behavioral Scientist 60(12)
therefore, having an “effectiveness [sic] measured in its ability to deceive.” One journalist
explained the deceptive nature further by stating,
On the surface, I don’t think they’re any different than regular advertising, so that would be
ethical. But anything that’s sole aim [is] to sell and deceive is unethical, right? I’m not one of
those people who think selling is inherently bad. We all need things. But deceiving to sell is
bad. So native advertising, inherently is unethical. There’s no other logical way to look at it.
When sharing perspectives on native advertising, journalists broached advertising
both as an ethical practice (e.g., “People know when they’re coming to a news site,
there’s going to be advertising. And that’s fine.”) and unethical practice (e.g., Native
advertising is no worse than “dumb Budweiser ads that are clearly trying to reach
children along with adults.”). However, one journalist in particular had a much stronger
reaction to native advertising:
The main problem with native advertising goes back to intentions. Advertising, it gets a
bad rep, but in a way [advertising is] a good thing. It lets people know what they may
want to buy. Without advertising, we’d all be using one product that’s been monopolized
or something. So advertising is a service. Native advertising though is intrinsically bad.
Its whole goal is to fool people, otherwise it wouldn’t attempt to look like regular copy.
That’s a bad thing. And we need to reign in such a bad thing. It should be illegal, frankly.
Journalists discussed deception relative to their role and to the mission of “highquality
journalism.” In summary, native advertising contradicts the fundamental principle
of journalism: truth. A journalist elaborated,
There’s nothing ethical about a practice that literally goes against the foundation of
journalism. [Interviewer: What’s the foundation?] Truth, of course. We need to always be
attempting to publish truth that will help people make important decisions. Sometimes,
everything we do isn’t truth[ful], but we’re trying. It’s about intention. If we mess up, we
tell people we messed up and why. Native ads, well, there’s nothing truthful about them.
By their very nature they’re a lie and that’s the antithesis of journalism.
Similar to journalists, marcom executives referred to native advertising as “misleading”
with the purpose to “fool people,” which therefore has “a long way to go . . .
before [it] becomes a truly, ethically, sound method of getting information in front of
people.” An advertising executive elaborated on the deceptive practice by stating if
you are going to advertise, you should advertise, versus disguise an ad as something it
is not. Similarly, another advertising executive stated that native advertising is almost
“hidden to the consumer in a lot of ways or it almost tricks the consumer into thinking
it’s not advertising.” A public relations executive suggested the practices is “ . . . pretty
tricky. You have to be careful that you’re not trying to trick consumers to think that’s
part of the editorial.”
Participants also discussed transparency, both explicitly and implicitly, when
describing the deceptive and unethical nature of native advertising. These responses
Schauster et al.	 1415
were further contextualized as function-specific, for example, advertising, public relations,
journalism, or other. Broadening the scope of her response to advertising in
general, an advertising executive said it is important to be as “honest and transparent
as possible” while making a “sales pitch.” A public relations executive agreed and also
broached the publisher’s role by suggesting that together they are “ . . . ensuring transparency—when
you get into native advertising and native content, I think it’s important
for the publisher as well as the advertiser to be very clear and transparent of what
is actually an advertisement and a paid endorsement.”
While several participants suggested resolutions, such as clearly identifying native
advertising as paid or sponsored content, a journalist bemoaned the inherent ethical
problem that extends beyond labeling:
You’ve got three industries, the journalism industry, the advertising industry and whatever
product or service we’re talking about, coming together collectively and making a
decision that tricking potential customers is a good thing. In what world is this considered
ethical? And please don’t give me the labeled argument. [Interviewer: Meaning?] Some
people will say the ad is labeled so it’s not bad. That’s crap. If it’s labeled well, it’s still
trying to pass itself off as journalism. Why use those conventions otherwise? Just make a
beautifulinteractivead.Butthat’snotwhattheydo.Theymaylabel,buttheunsophisticated
won’t get it and then they’ll click on something meant to look exactly like a story. That’s
a problem.
Others also suggested that consumers simply cannot decipher native advertising
when it is intended to look and read like a news story. An advertising executive summarized
the ethical concern by stating, “I think a lot of consumers don’t know the
difference, and I think that advertising should be explicit, and I think that when someone’s
looking at the ad, they should know that they’re looking at an ad.”
While several participants were concerned that readers are unable to decipher paid
and sponsored content from editorial content, several other journalists and marcom
executives alike, suggested that “people get it.” These responses were qualified by a
consumer’s attributes such as age, generation, savviness, and sophistication. For
example, a public relations executive and a digital marketing executive both suggested
that younger generations, such as Millennials and those younger than 35 years, have
an “ability to discern” what is paid content. Responses were also qualified by a consumer’s
agency, as well as their interest in native advertising. In part, the proliferation
of social media usage allows consumers to have power and a voice in response to
“unscrupulous” media acts. An advertising executive explained consumers’ agency as
follows:
So I think that there’s probably industry being a bit overly cautious and maybe some
particular advocacy groups that are sensitive to this issue. But I think rank and file
population out there is, um, is smart and understands that, you know, two-way trade, they
feel like [if] someone’s trying to take them for a ride or [sic] being sneaky they will rebel
by not purchasing, not utilizing that product. Or broadcasting on their social network that
the particular brand was being unscrupulous. I think it’s so.
1416	 American Behavioral Scientist 60(12)
Regarding consumers’ interest in native advertising, a public relations executive
suggested, “ . . . what’s fascinating is even if they understand it, what I find fascinating
is they may not care.”
Credibility
Participants also reported concerns that the ultimate consequence of deceiving audiences,
as a result of publishing native advertising, is diminished credibility of journalism.
Even clearly labeled native advertising, such as The New York Times piece on
Orange Is the New Black referenced as a good example of native advertising by a
journalist and a public relations executive, influences credibility because the content
is still “indistinguishable from journalism.” Further exacerbating the problem is the
already diminished trust in media; native advertising gives audiences just “another
bullet in the chamber,” according to a journalist.
Primarily, it was journalists that deliberated the issue of credibility. However, it
should be noted how credibility also influences marcom practices. A journalist elaborated
on diminished credibility as a consequence affecting the multiple industries
involved:
Native advertising, um, it’s a double-edged knife, or sword. On one hand, with advertising
revenue down, it’s bring[ing] back some of that. More revenue can only help people like
me. The more revenue, the more I assume there will be resources for good reporting, and
the less layoffs we’ll have. But there’s the other side to that coin, of course. It’s an income
generator based around the idea of hoodwinking our audience. If the fake or native stories
aren’t real, the whole thing doesn’t work. But if they look too real, the audience thinks
we’re giving them real news when it’s really about selling something or other. That can
lead to real problems for everyone. It could upset readers to the point they avoid products.
And more likely, it could really hurt journalism’s credibility. I don’t know who wins with
native advertising, you know?
Supporting the ubiquitous concern for credibility is the notion that “earned media
comes from people that consumers trust,” as mentioned by a public relations executive.
However, he continued, earned media today blurs with the practices of paid
media, because news organizations now have “marketing arms that you can pay and
they will—their reporters will go cover what you want them to cover and it feels like
editorial.” Another public relations executive did not discuss the explicit issue of credibility,
but suggested there is a stigma associated with native advertising since it is not
what she “signed up to do.”
A Necessary Evil
Economic factors affect the extent to which native advertising should be offered,
according to both journalists and marcom executives. Native advertising generates revenue
not only for the publisher but also for the agency and advertiser. An advertising
executive stated, “So obviously, it’s great that it’s kind of a win-win, because it’s
Schauster et al.	 1417
usually got a very prominent placement, so the brand is happy and—that they’re getting
their content out there—and the publisher is happy.” The practice comes at a much
needed time, according to an advertising executive, when newspapers are “very, very
into native advertising” because they “have lost so much ad revenue.” Advertising and
public relations industries face similar economic pressure, specifically from clients
demanding a return on investment. Public relations executives, for example, are considering
media options that in the past were traditionally overlooked. According to one
public relations executive, they are now “look[ing] at every single channel,” and asking,
“How do we maximize that?” How do we “get better results for [our] clients?”
According to journalists, journalism and advertising are separate, so native advertising
should have no influence on journalism ethics. A journalist stated,
The content is just not journalistic. It stands out so much on our site because anybody
with half a brain could easily see that this content comes from a very different perspective.
It’s not journalism. It’s not produced by journalists. It pays the bills.
Furthermore, native advertising heightens the division between journalism and
business. A journalist elaborated that regardless of whether cynics are overreacting or
native advertising is profitable, “journalism and money should be separated.” Simply
put, “as journalists, we should avoid it.” However, while the division between editorial
and economics is important, the end result of native advertising is not any different
from traditional advertising. According to another journalist,
The history of journalism is littered with change, change often argued about. But that
change is about making money. The last time I checked, we’re in a business, so money’s
the name of the game. So as long as the ads don’t aim to trick people, I’m fine.
The Efficacy of Native Advertising
The effectiveness of native advertising is dependent upon the content and relevance to
the consumer. Marcom executives suggested that native advertising is a beneficial
storytelling tool when done well. An advertising executive’s response summarizes this
view:
So I’m a huge believer in native advertising. I think that as long as the content is fair and
accurate and done with integrity, I absolutely think, and within relevant content, and
you’re servicing the user who’s going to be reading that content. As long as you’re
relevant, then I think that it doesn’t matter whether it’s native or not.
When done correctly, native advertising is effective, according to another advertising
executive. When asked what does effective look like, she answered, “It depends on
the context. It’s all about the publisher’s context. It looks like adding value within any
given context, right.” An example, by The New York Times, was given by a public relations
executive,
1418	 American Behavioral Scientist 60(12)
… when Orange is the New Black did a big one. And no one knew that it was native
advertising. You couldn’t even tell. I think when you can’t tell, that’s when it’s done right.
If it’s done just as good as or better than the content in the non-branded content on a site
or the platform, that’s when the native advertising and branded content’s done right.
Marcom executives talked about other standards of good content, such as it must be
“compelling” and “organic.” To uphold these standards, new organizational models
are being introduced. An advertising executive gave two examples:
I think some of the longer form content like native content is a little bit more specialized.
And I actually I think, from my experience, a lot of that native stuff is really worked on
hand in hand with the publisher. So if you have native content in the New York Times,
they’ve got whole teams that are dedicated to helping develop the content. Or like
BuzzFeed for instance, [we] work with BuzzFeed, they have creative teams that will help
and kind of know the platform. I think that’s the most important thing and kind of why
it’s called native is that they know their platform and that it’s seemingly natural to that
environment.
Marcom executives also suggested the content must be “relevant” to the reader. An
advertising executive spoke about Millennials specifically, and suggested they are
advertising adverse, so advertising must look more organic. While consumers might
find value in “good stories,” there is still the issue of consumers’ lack of knowledge
leading to deception. When embedded within a “given context,” and when blended
well, consumers are deceived. A public relations executive suggested that while consumers
are looking for good content, they still do not know it is paid.
Hear No Evil
There are various people involved, both directly and indirectly, in the creation and
placement of native advertising. Consequentially, when discussing the ethics of native
advertising, some participants suggested others, versus themselves, are ethically
responsible. All three participant groups passed the buck, and oftentimes, to each
other. An advertising executive stated,
In terms of native advertising, you know truthfully, I don’t think there’s an ethical issue
on the advertising side. We’re paid to push the envelope. I rely on publishers to take up
that ethical torch. They have their charge to be ethical and good reporters and have the
division between advertising and content. As an advertising professional, I’m paid to blur
those lines.
Similarly, another advertising executive acknowledged the ethical issue, but also
diverted responsibility to the publisher by stating as follows:
I think that anytime where there may be some confusion about the difference between
editorial content, sponsored content and advertising content, I think you have to be
Schauster et al.	 1419
extremely careful, but I do think that much of the responsibility for that is actually not
from the brand or the advertising agency I think it’s from the publishing platform.
A journalist also shifted responsibility when questioning the ethics of native advertising
by asking, “Is it ever ethical to trick people? If it is, then what we’re doing is ethi-
cal.Orwhatpublishersaredoing,Ishouldsay.”Anotherjournalistshiftedresponsibility
and stated, “Our business is meant to deliver important and factual information to
people. But, oh yeah, we’re paying the bills by allowing advertisers the ability to trick
people. Think about that.” Finally, a public relations executive justified the practice by
suggesting that if they are not doing native advertising their competitors would.
Discussion
To answer the question, to what extent does native advertising obstruct the social
responsibility function of the press, this study asked the people most directly involved
with and affected by native advertising about their perceptions of the practice. Carlson
(2015b) argued that native advertising, unlike traditional forms of advertising, aims to
deceive people into thinking the content is akin to journalistic content. Interviewees
from all three industries consistently and constantly noted that deception is part of the
practice of native advertising. And regardless of the industry, participants labeled this
deception as ethically bankrupt. Journalists, in particular, focused on the perceived
main effect of native advertising: further deterioration of the credibility of journalism
leading to further distrust of journalists. The participants who did not necessarily
approve of the practice, rationalized native advertising as a necessary evil, a means to
inject much needed financial gain. Marcom executives also discussed the effectiveness
of native advertising, specifically what makes for good content. Finally, when
discussing the ethical implications of the practice, participants consistently shifted the
blame to other parties.
Though roles and goals of journalists and marcom executives differ significantly,
this study found expressively similar views on native advertising. For example, executives
from all industries considered the deceptive nature of native advertising to be
ethically questionable. Numerous interview participants talked about how they would
rather not participate in the process or not have their organization publish native ads.
For advertising and public relations executives, the very people predominantly creating
this content, to think of native advertising as potentially unethical, is surprising in
the context of previous research (e.g., Coddington, 2015; Couldry & Turow, 2014).
While professionals from all industries predominantly agreed, in theory, on the
deceitfulness of native advertising, the implicit differences in ethical perceptions arose
when discussing the efficacy of native advertising. Journalists and marcom executives
continuously and consistently discussed proper labeling of native ads to avoid deception
as much as possible, marcom executives described quality native advertising in an
almost, exactly opposite manner. For example, as previously mentioned in the findings,
advertising executives mentioned “the context” in which the native ad is published,
stressing that the ad should resemble the editorial context, implying it should
1420	 American Behavioral Scientist 60(12)
be indistinguishable and feature editorial-like “storytelling.” A public relations executive,
discussing The New York Times’ Orange Is the New Black native ad called it a
stellar example of an effective ad, explaining, “and no one knew that it was native
advertising. You couldn’t even tell. I think when you can’t tell, that’s when it’s done
right.” Inherent in that statement, of course, is that native advertising is done right only
when deception is not just involved but accomplished.
This very clear difference relates specifically to social responsibility theory. The
established goal of social responsibility theory is to ensure that business and government
cannot influence journalism, effectively meaning that the press can act as autonomous
watchdog of power (Christians & Nordenstreng, 2004). Siebert et al. (1956)
established six criteria inherent in achieving social responsibility. While some of these
tenets, such as provide entertainment and serve the economic system with advertising,
for example, remain unaffected in any substantial manner by native advertising, this is
not the case with other tenets. According to Deuze (2005), the press in general and a
media organization specifically cannot achieve social responsibility without credibility.
The current findings illustrate how credibility is being affected by native advertising.
Journalists, and even some marcom executives, noted how deceiving the audience
could very clearly and negatively affect credibility. One key tenet of social responsibility
theory is to serve the political system with information for debate and discussion.
Implied in that tenet is that the information is truthful. When news organizations
print untruthful information, their credibility suffers accordingly (Deuze, 2005). Since
the content of native advertising is not specific to simply selling a product and can
include promoting a mind-set or political ideology (Coddington, 2015), this could
negatively affect the press’ ability to assist the public in self-governance, another
stated tenet of social responsibility theory. For the public to self-govern, it needs truthful
information to base its opinions on; ideally, the public would weigh truths concerning
all aspects of an issue and then proceed accordingly, thus the need for truthful
information in a self-sustaining democracy (Christians et al., 2009). If a news organization
is deceiving the public into thinking that journalists independently, without outside
influence, published a story promoting a specific political ideology, when in fact
it was paid for by an organization devoted to that cause, this could significantly and
negatively affect the public’s ability to self-govern.
Finally, and arguably most important, a tenet of social responsibility theory is for
the press, meaning journalists, to maintain sufficient financial independence, free from
the pressure of special interests. More specifically, this tenet argues for an implicit and
binding contract between journalists and the public. This contract call for journalists
to do their jobs and publish truthful material based on what they believe to be newsworthy
and impactful to their audience, without influence from special interests groups
with stakes in the subject (Christians et al., 2009). The very essence of native advertising
inherently contradicts this tenet. Native advertising, if done well according to marcom
executives and the definition of the term, produces content undetectable from
traditional editorial content. While editorial content is not influenced by special interest
groups, in most cases, native advertising is. This violates the most sacred boundary
in journalism: the wall between editorial and advertising (Schudson, 2013). As noted
Schauster et al.	 1421
by Coddington (2015), this boundary is the only one that journalists and scholars can
agree to be essential to journalism. Scholars have argued that this boundary began to
blur during the beginning of the 21st century (e.g., Kaye & Quinn, 2010; Pompilio,
2009), but this blurring is becoming more and more evident in the age of native advertising
(Carlson, 2015a) as these findings suggest.
Native advertising presents a threat to more than half of the six tenets of social
responsibility. The three industries involved in this practice—journalism, advertising,
and public relations—agree in some way that native advertising is, at best, deceptive
and something to monitor closely and, at worst, unethical. For the press to function in
a normative manner, two characteristics that simply cannot be attached to it are deceptive
and unethical.
Conclusion and Future Research
The current study questioned the extent to which native advertising impedes on the
social responsibility of the press. However, in applying social responsibility theory,
attention was afforded primarily to journalism. Further research on native advertising
with an emphasis on persuasive communication is warranted. One might argue, it is
the ethical responsibility of advertising and public relations executives to achieve
advertising effectiveness, i.e., persuade audiences, on behalf of their clients’ expenditures.
In the case of native advertising, intended to tell a story, effectiveness, much like
editorial, should be predicated on credibility. An advertisement is valuable to a reader
based on the extent to which the environment in which it is embedded is perceived as
credible (Meyer, 2004). However, if readers are unable to discern native content from
editorial content, and feel deceived, ultimately the publication will be viewed as less
credible. After interviews for the current study were completed, the Federal Trade
Commission called for native advertisements to include a label of “advertisement”
versus “sponsored by” or “promoted by,” which are viewed by the government organization
as ambiguous and misleading (Kelly, 2015). Therefore, future research could
examine the extent to which the new label affects consumers’ perception of credibility
as well as professionals’ perception of the efficacy of native advertising.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Altschull, J. H. (1997). Boundaries of journalistic autonomy. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social
meanings of news: A text-reader (pp. 259-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
1422	 American Behavioral Scientist 60(12)
Anderson, H. A. (1977). An empirical investigation of what social responsibility theory means.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 54, 33-39.
Bagdikian, B. H. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Baker, C. E. (1994). Advertising and a democratic press. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Baldasty, G. J. (1992). The commercialization of news in the nineteenth century. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Baran, S. J., & Davis, D. K. (2012). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and
future (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Carlson, M. (2015a). Introduction: The many boundaries of journalism. In M. Carlson & S.
C. Lewis (Eds.), Boundaries of journalism: Professionalism, practices, and participation
(pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Routledge.
Carlson, M. (2015b). When news sites go native: Redefining the advertising–editorial divide in
response to native advertising. Journalism, 16, 849-865.
Christians, C. G., Glasser, T. L., McQuail, D., Nordenstreng, K., & White, R. A. (2009).
Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Christians, C. G., & Nordenstreng, K. (2004). Social responsibility worldwide. Journal of Mass
Media Ethics, 19, 3-28.
Coddington, M. (2015). The wall becomes a curtain: Revisiting journalism’s news–business
boundary. In M. Carlson & S. C. Lewis (Eds.), Boundaries of journalism: Professionalism,
practices, and participation (pp. 67-82). New York, NY: Routledge.
Couldry, N., & Turow, J. (2014). Advertising, big data and the clearance of the public realm:
Marketers’ new approaches to the content subsidy. International Journal of Communication,
8, 1710-1726.
Davis, J. (2012). Advertising research theory and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered.
Journalism, 6, 442-464.
Drumwright, M. E., & Murphy, P. E. (2004). How advertising practitioners view ethics: Moral
muteness, moral myopia, and moral imagination. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 7-24.
Drumwright, M. E., & Murphy, P. E. (2009). The current state of advertising ethics: Industry
and academic perspectives. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 83-107.
Fakazis, E. (2006). Janet Malcolm constructing boundaries of journalism. Journalism, 7,
5-24.
Fallows, J. (2013, January 15). The scientology ad. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.
theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/the-scientology-ad/267198/
Fitzpatrick, K., & Gauthier, C. (2001). Toward a professional responsibility theory of public
relations ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16, 193-212.
Greenwood, S. (2015, July). Digital: U.S. display advertising by type. Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/chart/digital-u-s-display-advertising-by-type/
Hatzios, A., & Lariscy, R. W. (2008). Perceptions of utility and importance of international
public relations education among educators and practitioners. Journalism & Mass
Communication Educator, 63, 241-258.
Interactive Advertising Bureau. (2015). About us. Retrieved from http://www.iab.com/our-
story/
Kaye, J., & Quinn, S. (2010). Funding journalism in the digital age: Business models, strategies,
issues and trends. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Schauster et al.	 1423
Kelly, K. J. (2015, December). FTC outlines native advertising rules for publishers. New York
Post. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2015/12/30/ftc-outlines-native-advertising-rules-
for-publishers/
Lazauskas, J. (2014, October 30). How The New York Times built its content marketing
machine. Contently. Retrieved from https://contently.com/strategist/2014/10/30/to-make-
this-work-you-have-got-to-compete-with-editorial-inside-the-nyts-native-ad-journey/
Lee, S., & Cheng, I. (2012). Ethics management in public relations: Practitioner conceptualizations
of ethical leadership, knowledge, training and compliance. Journal of Mass Media
Ethics, 27, 80-96.
Levi, L. (2015). A “Faustian pact”? Native advertising and the future of the press. Arizona Law
Review, 57, 647-711.
Lewis, S. C. (2015). Epilogue: Studying the boundaries of journalism: Where do we go from
here. In M. Carlson & S. C. Lewis (Eds.), Boundaries of journalism: Professionalism, practices,
and participation (pp. 218-228). New York, NY: Routledge.
McCracken, G. D. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware? Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Meyer, P. (2004). Saving journalism: How to nurse the good stuff until it pays. Columbia
Journalism Review, November/December, 55-57.
Moore, J. D. (2014). News goes native: An examination of online media’s disclosure practices
for sponsored content. (MA), University of Nebraska.
Moses, L. (2014, June 14). New York Times debuts the “Snowfall” of native ads. Digiday.
Retrieved from http://digiday.com/publishers/new-york-times-native-ad-thats-winning-
skeptics/
Murphy, P. (1998). Ethics in advertising: Review, analysis, and suggestions. Journal of Public
Policy Marketing, 17, 316-319.
Plaisance, P. L. (2015). Virtue in media: The moral psychology of excellence in news and public
relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pompilio, N. (2009). A porous wall. American Journalism Review, 31(3), 32-37.
Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Schudson, M. (2013). Advertising, the uneasy persuasion: Its dubious impact on American society.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Sebastian, M. (2014a, June). Native ad production values keep growing with “Orange is the
New Black” promo. Advertising Age. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/media/york-
times-runs-native-ad-orange-black/293713/
Sebastian, M. (2014b, November). Native ad spending to jump despite marketers reservations.
Advertising Age. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/digital/native-ad-spending-
jumps-marketers-reservations/295956/
Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian,
libertarian, social responsibility, and soviet communist concepts of what the press
should be and do. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Singer, J. B. (2006). The socially responsible existentialist. Journalism Studies, 7, 2-18.
Warren, C. A. B. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.),
Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 83-101). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Weaver, D., Beam, R. A., Brownlee, B. J., Voakes, P., & Wilhoit, G. C. (2007). The American
journalist in the 21st century: US news people at the dawn of a new millennium. New York,
NY: Routledge.
1424	 American Behavioral Scientist 60(12)
Author Biographies
Erin E. Schauster (PhD, University of Missouri) is an assistant professor in the Department of
Advertising, Public Relations and Media Design at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her
research examines the relationship between advertising ethics and organizational culture,
changing organizational structures and practices of advertising and public relations industries,
and the implications for higher education.
Patrick Ferrucci (PhD, University of Missouri) is an assistant professor in the Department of
Journalism at the University of Colorado Boulder. His research focuses on media sociology,
specifically the intersection of economics and technology and how this affects news production
processes.
Marlene S. Neill is an assistant professor at Baylor University. She received her PhD in advertising
from the University of Texas at Austin. She previously worked for almost 12 years in
government and nonprofit public relations. Her research focuses on public relations management,
organizational power, and ethics.