I really like people who view things differently. And this blogpost shows that native advertising should not be taken for granted.
However, I’m not fully agree with this blogpost :-)
First of all, why should we believe this bold statement from this IAB senior guy? At the end of the day, he’s working for IAB. And who are the members from IAB? Advertisers, right! So, any statement from these people are “coloured”. And also, it’s an opinion. From one person. Just like many other opinions. Is he therefor right?
Then regarding the example of the content … you mentioned…. “Or a sponsored answer’ on Quora’ by Microsoft, on the question what the best tablet device under $600 is?
If this type of content is considered as *the perfect form of native advertising*, then I am agree that native advertising is not the solution to replace annoying banner ads.
However, this Microsoft example is NOT a good way of how valuable native advertising should be. It’s just cheap advertising.
The solution is ALWAYS to create added value. Value for the reader (learn something, have new insights…) , for the publisher (relevance) and for the advertiser (supporting the corporate way of communication).
Again, if you look to the Microsoft example as the right way of how native adverising should be, then search for examples that does work.
At Bloovi.be we have Microsoft as well as a customer. However, we would never publish this cheap type of content for them. Why? We do not please our readers, therefor we do not please ourselves as a publisher and we do not please our customer.
The way we do it is by listening to our customers and create a storyline for them. Then create content in line with this storyline and in line with content which is added value for all the stakeholders. ALWAYS!