數字媒體廣告軟文到底行不行

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.

近年來在出版和廣告行業中，關於“贊助內容”或曰“原生廣告”、“軟廣告”的爭論甚囂塵上。顧名思義，“贊助內容”指的就是那些看起來很像網友的熱心評論，實質上卻是由廣告主直接付錢打造的廣告。

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?

現在，這種廣告模式不僅被BuzzFeed等新興的網絡公司所採用，就連《福布斯》（Forbes ）和《大西洋月刊》（ The Atlantic）等老牌媒體也打上了軟廣告的主意。業內人士在觀察之餘不免議論紛紛：軟廣告是不是騙人的？是不是不道德？還有，它究竟有沒有效果？

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.)

不管這些問題的答案是什麼，不可否認的是，這種做廣告的方法眼下已經悄然時興起來。《華盛頓郵報》（the Washington Post）、《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal）、《紐約時報》（New York Times ）等大牌報刊也會隔三岔五發幾篇軟文。【《財富》（Fortune ）也決定不再置身事外。】去年廣告主們花在軟廣告上的金額達到了24億美元，比2012年躍升了77%。同年，《華盛頓郵報》的研究總監將軟廣告譽爲“一場心靈的旅程”。（這是真的。）

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.)

根據Contently公司近日發表的一篇調查顯示，軟廣告雖然受到了出版商的歡迎，但消費者卻對它很不感冒。作爲一家創業公司，Contently的主要業務就是給品牌和軟文寫手牽線搭橋，因此這篇調查的結果可以說簡直與Contently的目標背道而馳。

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.

有三分之二的受訪者表示，一旦他們意識到一篇文章或一段視頻是由某個品牌贊助的，他們會覺得受到了欺騙。超過半數的受訪者表示他們不會相信軟廣告，不管它是關於什麼的。59%的受訪者認爲，一個新聞網站如果登載了軟廣告便會失去公信力——不過儘管如此，他們還是覺得軟廣告的可信度好歹要比《福克斯新聞》（than Fox News）強上那麼一丁點。

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.

軟廣告是否會造成誤解以及損害公信力？出版商和廣告主們對這個問題經常用同一句話回答：“它已經標明是‘贊助內容’了！”以讀者們聰明的智商是應該能看出來的，批評人士似乎也有點矯枉過正了。

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.”

也就是像新聞平臺True/Slant的創始人劉易斯o德沃金所說的一樣，它們都“打了標籤”。在德沃金的領導下，《福布斯》的供稿人網絡獲得了極大的拓展，而且德沃金還負責了《福布斯》贊助的“品牌之聲”（BrandVoice）項目。《紐約時報》出版人小亞瑟o蘇茲伯格也表示，報刊網站上的軟廣告都清楚地打了標籤，以便確保讀者明白“什麼是《紐約時報》的新聞報道，什麼是廣告”。

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公司這份基於542人的調查卻給兩人的觀點潑了一瓢冷水。據這份調查顯示，讀者一般並不明白“贊助”二字的含義，當他們看見“贊助內容”的標籤時，一半人心中想的是，贊助商花錢買來寫手吹捧自己，而且肯定影響了這篇文章。有五分之一的讀者認爲，這篇軟文的內容是由一支編輯團隊打造的，但是“有了贊助商的錢纔有了它。”18%的讀者認爲，贊助商只是花錢買下了文章旁邊的冠名權。還有13%的讀者認爲文章乾脆就是贊助商自己寫的。就連美國聯邦貿易委員會（the U.S. Federal Trade Commission）對軟廣告也是一知半解。去年，它的一個專門委員會開會討論軟廣告，但是這次會議“提出的問題比解答的問題還多”。

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，等到讀者真正明白了“贊助”的含義，他們就會感到受到了欺騙。有75%的受訪者表示，他們寧可自己喜歡的新聞網站打出橫幅式廣告，也不願意看到廣告軟文。（諷刺的是，很多人都認爲軟廣告是一種非常能得到消費者共鳴的創新，足以“殺死”低端的橫幅廣告。）只有18.7%的受訪者表示喜歡軟廣告，因爲他們覺得軟廣告更有意思。三分之二的受訪者表示，他們不太可能點擊一篇由某個品牌贊助的文章。從讀者的角度看，軟廣告貌似根本就不是什麼“心靈的旅程”。

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.

平心而論，人們很少承認他們喜歡廣告或是他們會受廣告影響的事實。正因爲如此，每隔幾年都會冒出來一篇調查，聲稱社交媒體廣告（尤其是Facebook上的）不管用。這或許也是實情，但若果真如此，我真不知道各大品牌爲何還會每年狂灑幾十億美元在社交媒體上打廣告（今年是83億美元）。

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.

不容否認，讀者對軟廣告的反應是負面的，而且非常強烈。就在Contently的調查發佈之前不久，網絡分析公司Chartbeat也就這個問題進行了調查。調查顯示，只有24%的讀者有耐心看完一篇軟文，而71%的讀者會看完一篇正常編輯內容。

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.

大家可能會問，以上所說的這些對於Contently這樣的公司究竟意味着什麼，因爲只有軟廣告在營銷市場上大有作爲，Contently的業務纔可能有錢賺。在調查報告的結尾處，Contently還是給傳媒界打了一針強心劑，稱各大品牌和傳媒最終還是會在徹底惹怒讀者之前，找到問題的解決辦法。

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舉了《紐約時報》、Mashable和BuzzFeed等例。據《紐約時報》負責贊助內容的高管表示，《紐約時報》的讀者閱讀贊助內容和其它編輯內容的時間一樣長。Mashable的內容編輯也表示，Mashable的讀者對贊助內容也並不反感。至於軟廣告的“鼻祖”BuzzFeed，更是有數不清的案例能說明它的廣告軟文發揮了多麼好的作用。

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.

目前軟廣告仍然有繼續發展的希望。但傳媒界仍然需小心：雖然願意看軟廣告的讀者可能會越來越多，但這並不意味着他們肯定喜歡自己看到的東西。