I just received a newsletter from William Reed Newsmedia titled Science & Nutrition that I didn’t sign up for, but that focuses on topics that are of interest to me. So, when an article titled, “Autism linked to decreased microbe diversity in the gut” popped up I clicked on it. I landed on a page that gives a short description of a study with findings which, when you read the case study, you realize are “correlational” and need “following up.” Conveniently tucked into the beginning of the case study is an advertisement for Zembrin, with a link that takes you to a website where you can purchase the product:
Zembrin® is Experiential – “Feel” the Benefits
![]() |
|
Also conveniently placed, at the end of the case study, was a list of companies who carry related products. Although this is a rather transparent example, Andrew Sullivan notes, on his blog, that this trend of publications mixing paid advertising with news content, without indicating it as such, is becoming more and more common. He references Jeff Jarvis’ post In the End Was the Word and the Word Was the Sponsor’s. Jarvis states that the reader should never be confused about the source of content because, “to do so breeds inconsistency… conflict of interest… and loss of brand value.” The key principal has to do with integrity and survival:
Brands are chasing the wrong goal. Marketers shouldn’t want to make content. Don’t they know that content is a lousy business? As adman Rishad Tobaccowala said to me in an email, content is not scalable for advertisers, either. He says the future of marketing isn’t advertising but utilities and services. I say the same for news: It is a service.


Leave a comment