????但Contently公司這份基于542人的調(diào)查卻給兩人的觀點潑了一瓢冷水。據(jù)這份調(diào)查顯示，讀者一般并不明白“贊助”二字的含義，當(dāng)他們看見“贊助內(nèi)容”的標(biāo)簽時，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為，這篇軟文的內(nèi)容是由一支編輯團隊打造的，但是“有了贊助商的錢才有了它。”18%的讀者認為，贊助商只是花錢買下了文章旁邊的冠名權(quán)。還有13%的讀者認為文章干脆就是贊助商自己寫的。就連美國聯(lián)邦貿(mào)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”。

????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(wǎng)站打出橫幅式廣告，也不愿意看到廣告軟文。（諷刺的是，很多人都認為軟廣告是一種非常能得到消費者共鳴的創(chuàng)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，因為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么“心靈的旅程”。

????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。正因為如此，每隔幾年都會冒出來一篇調(diào)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為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）。

????不容否認，讀者對軟廣告的反應(yīng)是負面的，而且非常強烈。就在Contently的調(diào)查發(fā)布之前不久，網(wǎng)絡(luò)分析公司Chartbeat也就這個問題進行了調(diào)查。調(diào)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(nèi)容。

????大家可能會問，以上所說的這些對于Contently這樣的公司究竟意味著什么，因為只有軟廣告在營銷市場上大有作為，Contently的業(yè)務(wù)才可能有錢賺。在調(diào)查報告的結(jié)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舉了《紐約時報》、Mashable和BuzzFeed等例。據(jù)《紐約時報》負責(zé)贊助內(nèi)容的高管表示，《紐約時報》的讀者閱讀贊助內(nèi)容和其它編輯內(nèi)容的時間一樣長。Mashable的內(nèi)容編輯也表示，Mashable的讀者對贊助內(nèi)容也并不反感。至于軟廣告的“鼻祖”BuzzFeed，更是有數(shù)不清的案例能說明它的廣告軟文發(fā)揮了多么好的作用。

????目前軟廣告仍然有繼續(xù)發(fā)展的希望。但傳媒界仍然需小心：雖然愿意看軟廣告的讀者可能會越來越多，但這并不意味著他們肯定喜歡自己看到的東西。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：樸成奎

????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.”

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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.