Each year in the digital age, we see the rise and fall of social media platforms, lightning-in-a-bottle trends and memes, and overarching changes to customer preferences that force the Marketing agency in Nagpur to evolve.
New tech and new trends keep me on my toes and it’s sometimes hard to predict exactly what trends will manifest in the near future—or how fast they’ll develop.
Accordingly, Marketing agency in Nagpur spend time researching and brainstorming to enlist pro and cons of changing customer preferences on Native Advertising
Speaking of Pros of Native advertising, which is “pay to play.” Brands pay for the placement of content on platforms outside of their own media. The content is useful, interesting, and highly targeted to a specific audience. In all likelihood, it’s not a traditional advertisement directly promoting the company’s product or service. The information is usually highly targeted (hopefully) and positioned as valuable. But again, in native advertising, you are renting someone else’s content distribution platform, except that you aren’t pimping a product or service.
The user experience is not disrupted with native advertising because it is delivered in a way that does not impede the user’s normal behavior in that particular channel. Brands want their native advertising to look as similar as possible to the third-party site’s content. Though the media company wants that too (because it’s easier to sell that way), it also has to put out a multitude of warning labels around the content to make sure the paid placement is 100% transparent.
To summarize, native advertising doesn’t disrupt the user experience and offers helpful information in a format similar to the other content on the site so users engage with it more than they would with, say, a banner ad. (This is good for advertisers, and if the content is truly useful, good for consumers.) In very simple terms, native advertising is one way content marketers can distribute their content.
However according to Marketing agency in Nagpur -Native ads may be popular with publishers, but consumers are not in love, they feel deceived when they realize an article or video is sponsored by a brand. They don’t trust branded content, regardless of what it was about.
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. Some of them think the content is produced by an editorial team but “a sponsor’s money allowed it to happen.” Some think the sponsor merely paid for its name to be next to the article. Some think it means the sponsor actually wrote the article.
There is no denying that readers’ response to sponsored content is negative and especially strong. 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.
According to Marketing agency in Nagpur, native advertising is already offered by 73 percent of online publishers, with another 17 percent planning to take the same path. In addition, 32 percent of consumers are open to sharing a native ad with friends, family and colleagues while only 19 percent of consumers will share traditional banner ads. Note that these are stats from as far back as 2015.
That’s why, in 2018, with rise of Digital media, it’s evident that the world is moving the way of native ads, and you should too if you want an optimal yield from your marketing strategies.