What’s Missing?

Big headline this morning on eMarketer.  It reads:

Good News: Publishers and Media Buyers Both Like Native Ads

I don’t know about you but I feel so much better that native advertising is here to stay.  For those of you unfamiliar with the subject, native advertising is ad content that presents itself as editorial.  Maybe you’re reading the website of a popular magazine and there is an article on what to look for when buying sunscreen.  Maybe you don’t notice that it’s written by the head of marketing from a sunscreen manufacturer.  If you know that, does it call into question any of the information you’re reading?  It does in my mind if that information recommends that you look for certain things on the label (you can bet they’re on HIS product’s label), etc.

This piece over at copyblogger can show you more examples.  My guess is that you had no idea that some of what you’ll see is advertising.  That’s the issue I have with the headline.  Publishers are represented.  So are advertisers through their media buyers.  What’s missing?

You are.  We are.  Consumers are.  They may like it but do you?  I don’t.  And this does not make me feel any better about it:

In a June 2014 study by Mixpo, nearly three-quarters of US publishers said having a native advertising offering was important. And they were taking action. The majority of respondents offered a native advertising solution, and an additional one-fifth planned to do so within the next few years at most.

I don’t want to have to wonder if anything I’m reading is editorial or advertising.  I don’t want to be researching my research to ascertain if it’s unbiased or quietly (some might say sneakily) advocating a brand.  I don’t like native ads unless they are clearly labeled as “advertising” and I’m sad that what I think (or what you think) doesn’t seem to be part of the equation that’s formulated about its future.

What’s your take?