????近年來在出版和廣告行業(yè)中，關(guān)于“贊助內(nèi)容”或曰“原生廣告”、“軟廣告”的爭論甚囂塵上。顧名思義，“贊助內(nèi)容”指的就是那些看起來很像網(wǎng)友的熱心評論，實質(zhì)上卻是由廣告主直接付錢打造的廣告。

????現(xiàn)在，這種廣告模式不僅被BuzzFeed等新興的網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司所采用，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(yè)內(nèi)人士在觀察之余不免議論紛紛：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？

????不管這些問題的答案是什么，不可否認的是，這種做廣告的方法眼下已經(jīng)悄然時興起來?！度A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(fā)幾篇軟文?！尽敦敻弧罚‵ortune ）也決定不再置身事外?！咳ツ陱V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(jiān)將軟廣告譽為“一場心靈的旅程”。（這是真的。）

????根據(jù)Contently公司近日發(fā)表的一篇調(diào)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。作為一家創(chuàng)業(yè)公司，Contently的主要業(yè)務(wù)就是給品牌和軟文寫手牽線搭橋，因此這篇調(diào)查的結(jié)果可以說簡直與Contently的目標(biāo)背道而馳。

????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(shù)的受訪者表示他們不會相信軟廣告，不管它是關(guān)于什么的。59%的受訪者認為，一個新聞網(wǎng)站如果登載了軟廣告便會失去公信力——不過盡管如此，他們還是覺得軟廣告的可信度好歹要比《?？怂剐侣劇罚╰han Fox News）強上那么一丁點。

????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(jīng)常用同一句話回答：“它已經(jīng)標(biāo)明是‘贊助內(nèi)容’了！”以讀者們聰明的智商是應(yīng)該能看出來的，批評人士似乎也有點矯枉過正了。

????也就是像新聞平臺True/Slant的創(chuàng)始人劉易斯?德沃金所說的一樣，它們都“打了標(biāo)簽”。在德沃金的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，《福布斯》的供稿人網(wǎng)絡(luò)獲得了極大的拓展，而且德沃金還負責(zé)了《福布斯》贊助的“品牌之聲”（BrandVoice）項目?！都~約時報》出版人小亞瑟?蘇茲伯格也表示，報刊網(wǎng)站上的軟廣告都清楚地打了標(biāo)簽，以便確保讀者明白“什么是《紐約時報》的新聞報道，什么是廣告”。

????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.

????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?

????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.)

????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.)

????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.

????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.

????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.”