Marketers are increasing their investments in content. It's during this time that marketers get to have fun semantic arguments, too. Is it content marketing or native advertising?
What's the difference, marketers may ask? In a rant aimed at The Wall Street Journal, but housed on the Content Marketing Institute site, Joe Pulizzi says content marketing is what brands create and may host on their sites, like his post. Marketers work with sites like the WSJ to create native advertising that's hosted on sites like WSJ's.
"In content marketing, you own the media," Pulizzi writes. "It's your asset. In native advertising, you are paying someone else to distribute and (ultimately) own your content."
In an April 28 post on ClearVoice, Amanda DiSilvestro adds three tips to the native advertiser's list:
- Clearly Mark Each Piece as a "promoted post" or "sponsored post." This helps with trust.
- Don't Directly Advertise the product or service. The native ad should include hints that relate "back to the company doing the advertising," she says.
- Be Fun to Read.
Bonus: Upworthy says native ads are viewed 3.5 times more than regular editorial on the site, and Forbes and The New York Times say they perform as well.
DiSilvestro makes it sound as if native advertising shouldn't be a "last-click" aspect of direct marketing. Do you agree?
Please respond in the comments section below.
Related story: 5 How-tos: Native Ads Viewed 3.5x More Than Editorial