News publishers like sponsored content for a variety of reasons. In a sea of nearly worthless programmatic ads, sponsored content — also known as native advertising — commands a premium price. The articles, if they are well-done, attract eyeballs. They evade ad-blockers, too. At worst, they can be confused with actual editorial content, but with proper disclosure they raise no more in the way of ethical issues than does a standard banner ad.
Earlier this week, a conservative website called the Maine Wire reported the existence of a $117,000 deal cut by the Maine Trust for Local News to publish sponsored content from the state’s Department of Education. The nonprofit Trust owns the Portland Press Herald and a number of smaller daily and weekly papers. The Maine Wire article says in part:
The payment will cover the publication and promotion of six articles portraying the Maine DOE in a flattering light. It’s unclear whether the state-sponsored “news” content will be written by someone from the Maine DOE or employees of the Maine Trust for Local News newspapers.
The taxpayer-funded “marketing campaign” will highlight the Maine DOE’s “use of federal emergency relief funding,” and will aim to “promote the best learning opportunities for all Maine students” and to “inspire ‘trust in our schools,’” according to the document.
Scare quotes aside, though, this is just garden-variety sponsored content. Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute looked into it (scroll down to “Sponsored content controversy in Maine”) and found the deal to be pretty unremarkable, writing:
The Wire chose to ignore that article-style pieces became a staple of digital advertising more than a decade ago. The Federal Trade Commission has taken the position that as long as sponsorship is disclosed, it’s not deception (though violations, especially among influencers, are not uncommon).
The format is typically employed by companies burnishing their image, but there is no obvious reason the door should be slammed shut on a self-promoting government placement.
In fact, the first of six such sponsored ads that the Trust will be running says “Sponsored” and “Content provided by Maine Department of Education” right at the top. The article, which appeared in the Press Herald, is also in a different typeface from what the paper normally uses. Edmonds passed along a statement from Trust chief executive Lisa DeSisto as well:
Branded content is a growing piece of our advertising product offerings. We’ve attracted new customers to the Maine Trust by offering branded content products, and we think they’re an important part of our revenue goals. In developing these products, nothing has been more important to us than creating a clear distinction between branded content advertising and our journalism.
Michael Socolow, a journalism professor at the University of Maine, initially raised some concerns about the arrangement on Twitter but then backed off once he saw the actual ad. “Turns out article’s labelled ‘Sponsored Content’ right at top, it’s not written by any journalists, and it’s actually a terrible piece of advertorial/propaganda [poorly written, boring + too long, and uninteresting]. So I’m less concerned,” he wrote.
Now, I do think it’s fair to ask whether a news organization ought to be accepting sponsored content from a government agency — but that horse left the barn quite a while ago. For instance, I searched the sponsored content at The Boston Globe to see if it had any similar arrangements, and it took me no time at all to find a native ad from Vermont Tourism, which a little additional searching revealed is a state agency. That said, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for the Trust to have a conversation with its journalists about what practices are and aren’t acceptable, and to listen to any concerns the newsroom might raise.
Finally, a disclosure: The Maine Trust is sponsoring an event for Ellen Clegg and me in Portland on Oct. 15 to talk about our book, “What Works in Community News.” (You can register here.) I worked with DeSisto at The Boston Phoenix and, later, Ellen and DeSisto were colleagues at The Boston Globe; we both think highly of her. You can make of that what you will. But Edmonds and Socolow have no such ties, and their conclusions are the same as mine.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I disagree with your position on “sponsored content,” which is nothing more than a deceptive euphemism for advertising. Too many people already don’t understand the difference between advertising and editorial material — between what is bought and what cannot be bought. Accepting advertising that is disguised as news further clouds this distinction, which must be at the very heart of every journalist’s work. No respectable publication should be doing it.
Ed, I respect your views. But when high-quality publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post are accepting sponsored content, I don’t know why financially strapped local outlets should turn it away. Obviously you’ve found a way to live without it, but I don’t think that’s true of everyone.
Sponsored Content is Fake News. It’s that simple. I have been in the news business for more than 30 years and still can’t figure out exactly what it means. Does the sponsor do the writing? Does the sponsor have final say over the final product? Does the sponsor get a free pass from any critical reporting? The New York Times and The Washington Post should stop. Being poor or even broke is no excuse for any newspaper to feed into the public’s mistrust of what we do by publishing sponsored content. InDepthNH.org will never accept sponsored content (fake news). Nancy West, executive editor.
Nancy, you really can’t figure out what it is? It’s advertising. It’s that simple. The writing is done either by the advertiser or by the ad department.
Dan, I must have forgotten to hit send in my second comment. Redo. Yes, I know it is advertising, but does anyone else really understand it? I can’t know the details hashed out between the ad salesperson and buyer. Is there a special deal the buyer expects like avoiding prying eyes from investigative reporters? If it is so clear that it is advertising, why not call it paid advertising instead of sponsored content. Times are hard for most newspapers. If a business is paying big bucks for sponsored content, but there is some suspicion the CEO who signs the checks is under investigation by the authorities, how hard is the publisher going to want his/her reporters to look into the matter and lose the cash knowing that could mean layoffs. Being poor is an honor if it means not taking tainted money to not tell the truth. Oh those euphemisms. Like school vouchers in NH called Education Freedom Accounts that were intended, lawmakers were told, to help low-income children find a good fit in their school, but ended up helping people who were already sending their kids to private or religious schools or homeschooling to help them pay a chunk of the tuition with taxpayer dollars. I will support sponsored content when it is called paid advertising in big block letters. I still won’t allow it at InDepthNH.org. I’m with Ed Miller at the Provincetown Independent. You had me at Independent, Ed. Thanks ,
Thanks, Nancy. I wrote about this in my weekly column this week, titled “Unsponsored Content”: https://provincetownindependent.org/opinion/editorial/2024/10/02/unsponsored-content/.
Ed, that’s a great column. I will probably write about it in the next few days.