Dive Brief:

• Research from Contently on sponsored content found a majority of people over 18 couldn’t tell the difference between native ads and editorial content.
• The study compared an actual article from Fortune against sponsored content on the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, the Onion, BuzzFeed and Forbes.
• Only the Atlantic and Onion native ads were identified as such by a majority of the participants.

Dive Insight:

A study by Contently that might give publishers a bit of a pause, but make marketers pretty happy, found most people don’t recognize sponsored content when they see it – or at best are confused by a mix of native ads and editorial content. The study pitted an actual article from Fortune against native ads from a handful of other publishers. Four of the six sponsored ads were identified as articles by a majority of the 509 people over 18 who participated in the study.

Only the Atlantic and Onion native ads were identified as such by a majority of the participants, and sponsored content on the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Onion received higher percentages as being deemed an actual article than the real article on Fortune garnered.

Contently noted in a blog post that media companies have invested heavily in native ads, specifically in the creation and distribution of sponsored content for brands, often charging over $100,000 for a native ad campaign. Publishers have attempted to address audiences' concerns – changing labeling, fonts, colors – but ultimately, Contently's findings show that regardless of what publishers have or have not done, "there is still significant confusion on the part of readers as to what constitutes an article and what constitutes an ad."

Further, the Contently blog post explained sponsored content has stirred a debate about whether these ads are "fundamentally misleading readers by cloaking an advertisement in the guise of a story."