Some journalistic principles from the predigital age deserve to survive, and the concept that journalism is different from ad copy is one. This isn’t “a new type of service journalism.” It’s an old type of puffery served up on a digital platform.

If one of Gawker’s writers has the temerity to write a sentence that doesn’t help move product or – *gasp* – question mindless consumerism, will it see the light of day?

@palafo @mathewi We hear that the future belongs to journalists who can code, but it looks brighter for journalists who can sell.—
Bruno Boutot (@brunoboutot) January 09, 2013

:-)

We’ve been in the “native ads” game since before native ads were a thing, and as such we’ve made plenty of mistakes. Jezebel readers have been offended by ads promoting skinnier bodies, Gizmodo readers have scoffed when advertisers refer to them as geeks, and Kotaku readers have torched us when we didn’t have our platform history in order.

But since writing the first sponsored post nearly five years ago, we’ve learned a whole lot about what DOES work. Talking to readers like equals, offering factual information, and creating content that makes people smile or think…that’s what “native advertising” is all about. Other publishers are just getting their toes wet, and they can take it from us…it takes a lot of missteps to get content advertising right for your audience. But for every misstep we’ve had, we’ve had hundreds of quality pieces that our users recognize as advertising, but appreciate all the same.

And, by the way…affiliate marketing is great in the content game, but what’s better is using the platform to tell great stories about great brands. Plenty more of that to come!

-James Del