数字媒体广告软文到底行不行？

    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”。

    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”。

    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）。

    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。

    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。

    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。（财富中文网）

    译者：朴成奎

    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.