When Sponsored Content Goes Wrong: Slate Tries To Promote A New TV Show

Here at AllYourScreens, we sympathize with anyone trying to make a bit more money from their web site. Whether you're a small site like ours or a big, bulky semi-old media site such as Slate, it's tough to earn a living.

One of the fastest growing segments of the online advertising business right now is what is called "native advertising" or "advertorials." There are a number of ways of doing it, from having an advertiser sponsor a special section or page to even creating content for the site to run. The best examples identify the content as being sponsored and I don't have a problem with that. We've done it here and would willingly do it again with the right advertiser.

But in theory, the deal should be more than just about making a few bucks. Yes, the web site is getting money from the advertiser, but the advertiser is getting more than just eyeballs. It's getting a piece of the web site's credibility and because that's the case it's important to ensure that sponsored content is both useful to the advertiser and the readers. Sponsored content will only be successful in the long run if it brings value to the site's audience. Otherwise, they'll begin ignoring the content and native advertising will become as effective as the blinking banner ad.




Which brings me to an example of sponsored content which should win some award for being an example of the least effective and laziest way to engage an audience. And it comes from Slate, a publication which typically manages to balance the twin desires of greed and usefulness.

On Tuesday morning I was reading this story that showed a great photo of some faraway galaxy, when I noticed a link on the sidebar touting the new Esquire series "Risky Listing." The show premieres tonight, the link is clearly marked "sponsored content" and I clicked it to see what the page looked like. If nothing else, I'm always looking for new ideas to pitch to advertisers.

The link led to a page touting the show and it is marked in several ways that it is sponsored content. Once again, a nice job with the disclosure and I think most readers would be comfortable with the way the matter was handled.

The problem was the page, which includes the least amount of useful information possible, albeit in a tastefully done fashion. There's a large header image of the show, which mentions the airdate. There's also a link to the show's Facebook page, a sidebar of the show's official Twitter feed, another banner ad touting the show and some links to Troy Peterson's "Gentleman Scholar" pieces on Slate.



I have no idea what Esquire paid for the page, but I suspect it's more than the effort is worth. The page is better than a banner ad, but only just. No one could apparently be bothered to write a short piece specifically for the page. There's a video clip dropped clumsily into the page, but there's nothing here that says "Hey, watch this show!" This piece of advertising screams, "We done just enough to cash the check, just keep moving."

There are plenty of ways to create content for a page like this that doesn't sell out the credibility of Slate. Hey, a simple Q&A with someone from the show would do the trick. Something, anything, that would inspire me as a reader to want to tune into the show while not diminishing Slate journalistic integrity. If Esquire Network was hoping for a page that would drive viewers to the show, then it's likely to be disappointed.

But if all you care about is a fancier way of branding, then the fledgling network just paid for the 2013 version of a banner ad.