Blurred line: Ads and normal content

Do you know that more and more people are willing to pay for subscriptions just to avoid looking at ads?

It should come to no surprise that consumer hate being bombarded by ads, especially embedded ads that are irrelevant and adds no value. Consumers are taking measures to avoid ads at all cost these days – statics has shown that adblocker users are on the rise – and advertisers know that.

This trend has forced advertiser to get creative to lure their target audience. And their solutions? Native Ads.

Native ads are not new. Buzzfeed is one of the pioneers of commerce content creator or “native advertising”. An article that reads “14 People Making The Best Of Bad Situations” might seem like just a typical Buzzfeed-style article but take a closer look and you will see that the post is sponsored by Volkswagen. In fact, almost all of Buzzfeed contents are sponsored post. Some may argue that native advertising is a deceiving to the consumer –it wastes consumer’s time to read an article, only to find out later that those are just promotional message to get them to make a purchase.

But to be fair, a piece like the Volkswagen post is not harmful at all because Volkswagen was just hoping to market the message “Get in. Get Happy.” The real issues are native ads like this: Clinton Corruption, an ad paid by Donald J. Trump on POLITICO telling “truth” about Hilary Clinton that disguised like a news article and a paid content ran in The Atlantic congratulating the Church of Scientology and its leader milestone” years (that has since removed following backlash), where publishers are compromising their reputation to ran sponsored content.

Unfortunately, the trend for native ads is rising. In 2016, The New York Times also jump on the bandwagon of native advertising to move away from standardized “banner” ads. It’s not hard to understand why The New York Times is trying to keep away from traditional ads. Research conducted by the Dusseldorf Institute for Competition Economics found out that “a 10% increase in ad time will reduce the audience size by 15%.” Consumers are really actively shunning away from ads content.

However, successful examples have shown that sponsored ads are not necessarily bad if publishers maintain their editorial standard. A well done sponsored ad is one that is relevant, educational and delivers facts.

Stühmeier, T., & Wenzel, T. (2011). Getting beer during commercials: Adverse effects of ad-avoidance. Information Economics And Policy23(1), 98-106. doi: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2010.09.002

Patagonia’s Anti- Advertising

Many of you know who Patagonia is. Known for their outdoor wear fit for the adventurer, Patagonia is known as one of the top clothing brands for outerwear. We know who Patagonia is but how? They do not invest in ads or advertisements, so how is it that virtually every individual knows who they are?

Patagonia is radically different than any other company. They are advocates as well as a retailer which appeals to consumers. Patagonia is less concerned with marketing and more concerned with their products and the environmental impact their products have. Patagonia’s brand message is the brand itself. They recognize that the production of their products cause environmental harm which is why they dedicate themselves to sustainability. With their 1% campaign, the company dedicates 1% of all sales to the preservation and restoration of the natural environment. Personally, I am intrigued by Patagonia’s many outlets and the ways they employ unique marketing strategies to boost sales while helping the environment. Additionally, a reason Patagonia’s brand message is the brand itself is that they do not rely heavily on ads and marketing strategies. Rather, they focus on what their brand is doing for others and the environment, as well as consumer loyalty to their products.

Patagonia recently launched their first commercial EVER. Coincidentally, this commercial was not about their products but rather the commercial stressed the important need to protect America’s public lands. Patagonia’s cry for help received a ton of support and their social media posts about their new commercial became one of their top liked. Patagonia chose now to air their commercial in response to President Trump’s to review some of America’s natural monuments. The review sparked controversy and Patagonia took a stand on the matter. True to their nature, Patagonia invested $700,000 in a one-minute ad not to promote their product but to stand up for what they believe to be right.

On top of their clothing lines, Patagonia has invaded several other markets such as foods and beverages and used clothing. Patagonia has an online store for food and beverages specializing in organic and farm to market foods. They offer recipes, gift boxes, dry goods, beer, and much more. With every purchase they donate meals to those in need including hurricane relief, wildfire relief, food banks, and many others. Their used clothing store takes used Patagonia brand items, repairs them, reuses them, and recycles them. Patagonia states that the best thing we can do for the planet is to keep gear longer and cut down on consumption.

The reason Patagonia’s advertising-free methods work is because they are immersed so deeply into the community and the environment. They use sustainability and activism to build their brand and fierce consumer loyalty. Patagonia’s mission statement sums up their methods and their company beautifully, it is to “build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.”

New Adidas Shoe Gets The Boot

A huge story in advertising this week was Adidas releasing a new brand campaign strategy in honor of February being Black History Month. Initially, the campaign would have been thought to have gone over smoothly and even increase sales but unfortunately, this is not what happened. Adidas released an entirely new line inspired by the Harlem Renaissance but the company made a crucial mistake when they put an all-white shoe in the line. Social media completely blew up of people angry about this mistake and wondering how it ever got approved in the first place. This seems to be happening all too much recently with different brands releasing items that just make absolutely no sense. After receiving tons of backlash Adidas quickly removed the sneaker and released a statement that read, “Toward the latter stages of the design process, we added a running shoe to the collection that we later felt did not reflect the spirit or philosophy of how Adidas believes we should recognize and honor Black History Month,” and also, “After careful consideration, we have decided to withdraw the product from the collection.” I believe this was a wise decision on part of the sportswear company, however, I am shocked that they released the shoe in the first place. Adidas obviously had good intentions in releasing their line in honor of Black History Month, however, the execution was poorly done. I think that in the future the company will be much more careful with the items they are releasing and what they are saying.

Pasquarelli., Adrianne, and Adrianne Pasquarelli. “Adidas Pulls Black History Month Shoe after Backlash.” Ad Age, 4 Feb. 2019, https://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/adidas-pulls-black-history-month-shoe-backlash/316523/