数字媒体广告软文到底行不行

In recent years, a debate has raged on among publishing and advertising industry insiders over “sponsored content”—more recently called “native advertising” and once known as “advertorial”—the sort of advertising that looks very much like editorial content but is, in fact, directly paid for by an advertiser.

近年来在出版和广告行业中，关于“赞助内容”或曰“原生广告”、“软广告”的争论甚嚣尘上。顾名思义，“赞助内容”指的就是那些看起来很像网友的热心评论，实质上却是由广告主直接付钱打造的广告。

The approach has been embraced by newer digital ventures such as BuzzFeed and new digital efforts for very old publications like Forbes and The Atlantic. Industry peers watched and discussed: Is it deceptive? Is it ethical? Does it even work?

现在，这种广告模式不仅被BuzzFeed等新兴的网络公司所采用，就连《福布斯》（Forbes ）和《大西洋月刊》（ The Atlantic）等老牌媒体也打上了软广告的主意。业内人士在观察之余不免议论纷纷：软广告是不是骗人的？是不是不道德？还有，它究竟有没有效果？

Whatever the answers, there’s no denying that the approach is suddenly in vogue. Storied news organizations such as the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times NYT have since taken the native plunge. (Fortune has also decided to engage in the practice.) Last year, advertisers spent $2.4 billion on native ads, a 77% jump over 2012. That same year, the Post’s CRO called native ads “a spiritual journey.” (Really.)

不管这些问题的答案是什么，不可否认的是，这种做广告的方法眼下已经悄然时兴起来。《华盛顿邮报》（the Washington Post）、《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal）、《纽约时报》（New York Times ）等大牌报刊也会隔三岔五发几篇软文。【《财富》（Fortune ）也决定不再置身事外。】去年广告主们花在软广告上的金额达到了24亿美元，比2012年跃升了77%。同年，《华盛顿邮报》的研究总监将软广告誉为“一场心灵的旅程”。（这是真的。）

Native ads may be popular with publishers, but consumers are not in love, according to a new survey conducted by Contently, a startup that connects brands with writers who then create sponsored content. (Yes, the survey runs counter to Contently’s mission; more on that in a moment.)

根据Contently公司近日发表的一篇调查显示，软广告虽然受到了出版商的欢迎，但消费者却对它很不感冒。作为一家创业公司，Contently的主要业务就是给品牌和软文写手牵线搭桥，因此这篇调查的结果可以说简直与Contently的目标背道而驰。

Two-thirds of the survey’s respondents said they felt deceived when they realized an article or video was sponsored by a brand. Just over half said they didn’t trust branded content, regardless of what it was about. Fifty-nine percent said they believe that a news site that runs sponsored content loses credibility—although they also said they view branded content as slightly more trustworthy than Fox News.

有三分之二的受访者表示，一旦他们意识到一篇文章或一段视频是由某个品牌赞助的，他们会觉得受到了欺骗。超过半数的受访者表示他们不会相信软广告，不管它是关于什么的。59%的受访者认为，一个新闻网站如果登载了软广告便会失去公信力——不过尽管如此，他们还是觉得软广告的可信度好歹要比《福克斯新闻》（than Fox News）强上那么一丁点。

Publishers and advertisers tend to respond to concerns of confusion or credibility with the same response: “It’s clearly labeled!” Simple disclosure solves all conflicts, they suggest. Readers are smart enough to figure it out, and critics don’t give them enough credit.

软广告是否会造成误解以及损害公信力？出版商和广告主们对这个问题经常用同一句话回答：“它已经标明是‘赞助内容’了！”以读者们聪明的智商是应该能看出来的，批评人士似乎也有点矫枉过正了。

To wit: “They get the drill,” said Lewis Dvorkin, the True/Slant founder who led the massive expansion of the Forbes contributor network and its sponsored BrandVoice program, at an event last year. Likewise, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has said the native ads on the newspaper’s website are clearly labeled to ensure there are no doubts about “what is Times journalism and what is advertising.”

也就是像新闻平台True/Slant的创始人刘易斯o德沃金所说的一样，它们都“打了标签”。在德沃金的领导下，《福布斯》的供稿人网络获得了极大的拓展，而且德沃金还负责了《福布斯》赞助的“品牌之声”（BrandVoice）项目。《纽约时报》出版人小亚瑟o苏兹伯格也表示，报刊网站上的软广告都清楚地打了标签，以便确保读者明白“什么是《纽约时报》的新闻报道，什么是广告”。

But Contently’s findings, based on a survey of 542 people, throw cold water on the notion that readers “get the drill.” According to the study, readers are confused about what “sponsored” even means: When they see the label “Sponsored Content,” half of them think it means that a sponsor paid for and influenced the article. One-fifth of them think the content is produced by an editorial team but “a sponsor’s money allowed it to happen.” Eighteen percent think the sponsor merely paid for its name to be next to the article. Thirteen percent think it means the sponsor actually wrote the article. Even the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is perplexed; a panel on native advertising last year “raised more questions than it answered.”

但Contently公司这份基于542人的调查却给两人的观点泼了一瓢冷水。据这份调查显示，读者一般并不明白“赞助”二字的含义，当他们看见“赞助内容”的标签时，一半人心中想的是，赞助商花钱买来写手吹捧自己，而且肯定影响了这篇文章。有五分之一的读者认为，这篇软文的内容是由一支编辑团队打造的，但是“有了赞助商的钱才有了它。”18%的读者认为，赞助商只是花钱买下了文章旁边的冠名权。还有13%的读者认为文章干脆就是赞助商自己写的。就连美国联邦贸易委员会（the U.S. Federal Trade Commission）对软广告也是一知半解。去年，它的一个专门委员会开会讨论软广告，但是这次会议“提出的问题比解答的问题还多”。

It gets worse. When readers do know what “sponsored” means, they still feel deceived. Fifty-seven percent of the study’s participants said they would prefer that their favorite news sites run banner ads over sponsored posts. (The irony: Native ads were supposed to be the highly engaging innovation to kill the lowly banner ad.) Only 18.7% of respondents said they prefer sponsored posts because they’re more interesting. Two-thirds of respondents said they are less likely to click on an article sponsored by a brand. From the perspective of a reader, sponsored content doesn’t look like a spiritual journey at all.

更糟糕的是，等到读者真正明白了“赞助”的含义，他们就会感到受到了欺骗。有75%的受访者表示，他们宁可自己喜欢的新闻网站打出横幅式广告，也不愿意看到广告软文。（讽刺的是，很多人都认为软广告是一种非常能得到消费者共鸣的创新，足以“杀死”低端的横幅广告。）只有18.7%的受访者表示喜欢软广告，因为他们觉得软广告更有意思。三分之二的受访者表示，他们不太可能点击一篇由某个品牌赞助的文章。从读者的角度看，软广告貌似根本就不是什么“心灵的旅程”。

In fairness, people rarely cop to the fact that they enjoy advertising or that it works on them. This is why, every few years, a survey is released claiming that social media ads, particularly those on Facebook FB 3.52% , don’t work. That may be the case, but I doubt brands would continue to pour billions of dollars into social media advertising—$8.3 billion this year—if it were.

平心而论，人们很少承认他们喜欢广告或是他们会受广告影响的事实。正因为如此，每隔几年都会冒出来一篇调查，声称社交媒体广告（尤其是Facebook上的）不管用。这或许也是实情，但若果真如此，我真不知道各大品牌为何还会每年狂洒几十亿美元在社交媒体上打广告（今年是83亿美元）。

But there is no denying that readers’ response to sponsored content is negative and especially strong. The findings of Contently’s survey follow data released earlier this year by Chartbeat, a web analytics company, showing that only 24% of readers scroll through sponsored content, versus 71% for editorial content.

不容否认，读者对软广告的反应是负面的，而且非常强烈。就在Contently的调查发布之前不久，网络分析公司Chartbeat也就这个问题进行了调查。调查显示，只有24%的读者有耐心看完一篇软文，而71%的读者会看完一篇正常编辑内容。

You may wonder what all this means for a company like Contently, which is built on the premise that branded content will become a huge part of the marketing industry. Concluding its study, the company suggests with a dose of optimism that brands and publishers will eventually figure things out before they turn readers off completely.

大家可能会问，以上所说的这些对于Contently这样的公司究竟意味着什么，因为只有软广告在营销市场上大有作为，Contently的业务才可能有钱赚。在调查报告的结尾处，Contently还是给传媒界打了一针强心剂，称各大品牌和传媒最终还是会在彻底惹怒读者之前，找到问题的解决办法。

Contently points to the Times, Mashable, and BuzzFeed: Times readers spend as much time reading sponsored content as regular editorial, says the executive in charge of the Times’ sponsored content. The same goes for Mashable readers, says the site’sbranded content editor. And BuzzFeed, which popularized the native ad format, has numerous case studies showing how well its sponsored articles work.

Contently举了《纽约时报》、Mashable和BuzzFeed等例。据《纽约时报》负责赞助内容的高管表示，《纽约时报》的读者阅读赞助内容和其它编辑内容的时间一样长。Mashable的内容编辑也表示，Mashable的读者对赞助内容也并不反感。至于软广告的“鼻祖”BuzzFeed，更是有数不清的案例能说明它的广告软文发挥了多么好的作用。

There is hope for the native ad yet. But publishers should be careful: though readers may be increasingly looking at sponsored content, it doesn’t mean they like what they see.

目前软广告仍然有继续发展的希望。但传媒界仍然需小心：虽然愿意看软广告的读者可能会越来越多，但这并不意味着他们肯定喜欢自己看到的东西。