The thing is, the Times approach to native advertising is all smoke and mirrors, as this interview with NYT executive vice president of advertising Meredith Kopit Levien in The Media Briefing reveals.
“The most important things the NYT has are its brand, its mission and the trust its readers place in those things. If we were to say anybody in our newsroom could touch that native content it would immediately compromise their independence.
“[We will] share story telling tools, share the container the story goes in, share code bases, be inspired by the newsroom’s work, but never share story tellers. Not in my lifetime as far as I can see.”
And then there’s this:
“We are transacting, in some cases, a smaller number of impressions, but at a much higher CPM. A smaller number of impressions because we’re selling better than we have in a long time on the direct side. Next year that will be an even bigger part of our business.”
Here’s the reality of it, from yesterday’s Times.
Notice especially this small type at the bottom of the ad.
Where we dutifully plugged in FXVFWS AYMT SLVCLN and got . . . an ad.
It should at least be honest about that.
John Carroll, who also writes at Campaign Outsider and It's Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town, is a media analyst and mass communication professor at Boston University.
John Carroll has 292 post(s) on Sneak Adtack