moving towards transparency for native advertisements on news websites. A test of more detailed disclosure labels

1. Moving towards transparency
for native advertisements
on news websites:
A test of more detailed disclosures
Simone Krouwer, Dr. Karolien Poels & Dr. Steve Paulussen
Simone.Krouwer@uantwerpen.be @SimoneKrouwer

2. Disclosure recognition versus deception
▹ Readers often do not notice or understand the disclosure…
▹ Disclosure- and ad recognition can lead to
more critical / negative evaluations
▹ Other studies found no or even a positive
effect of adding disclosures to native ads
(e.g. Wojdynski and Evans 2015)
?
(Boerman and Van Reijmersdal 2016; Wojdynski and Evans 2015),
(e.g. Becker-Olsen 2003; Carr and Hayes 2014; Krouwer and Poels 2016).

3. Possible explanation: differences in
Sponsorship Transparency (ST)
▹ “The extent to which a sponsored communication message
makes noticeable to the consumer its paid nature and the
identity of the sponsor.” (Wojdynski, Evans et al. 2017)
Studies in other online contexts:
▹ Readers appreciate transparent advertising practices
▹ Deception leads to more negative evaluations
▹ Transparency can increase credibility and decrease feelings
of deception.
(e.g. Becker-Olsen 2003; Carr and Hayes 2014; Taiminen, Luoma-aho et al. 2015)

4. This study: a test of 4 more- and less detailed disclosures
Standard disclosures:
1. Partner content
2. Sponsored by [brand]
Detailed disclosures about:
3. Business model: “Native advertising revenue supports our journalism”
4. Authorship: “No journalists have been involved…”

5. Sponsorship Transparency in general
▹ Perceived Sponsorship Transparency for all types of
media:
depends on the degree of brand presence, clarity of the ad’s
sponsor, disclosure clarity, feelings of deception (Wojdynski, Evans et al. 2017)
Two ‘standard’ disclosures:
▹ 1. “Partner content”
 No information about the sponsor
 Does not include information about the paid nature
▹2. “Sponsored by [brand]”
 Includes the name of the sponsor
 Indicates the paid nature of the ad

6. Ad recognition
Sponsorship Transparency
Credibility news websites
(in general)
Credibility advertisers
(in general)
Credibility
native advertising
(in general)
Partner content
Sponsored by (…)
H1a
H1b
H1c
H1d
H1e

7. Why am I seeing this
between my news?
Who is the author
of this text?
A journalist?
News Contexts   Other media contexts
Key elements of transparency in news contexts:
▹ Authorship of each article
▹ Advertising / Editorial divide  autonomy journalists
▹ Internal processes and decision making
(Karlsson, 2010; van der Wurff & Schönbach, 2014)

8. Sponsorship Transparency in a news context
3. Explaining the authorship of native ads
 “Sponsored by…”  Readers are sometimes still confused about
the authorship
 BUT: Autonomy journalists = key characteristic of news media
(Deuze 2005; Levi 2015)
 To increase transparency and credibility:
Provide explicit information about the author of native ads
(Karlsson, 2010; van der Wurff & Schönbach, 2014).

9. Ad recognition
Sponsorship Transparency
Credibility news websites
(in general)
Credibility advertisers
(in general)
Credibility
native advertising
(in general)
Partner content
Sponsored by (…)
Detailed disclosure:
explanation authorship
H2a
H2b
H2c
H2d
H2e

10. Sponsorship Transparency in a news context: internal processes
 4. Explaining news media’s business model
Explaining internal processes and relationship to advertisers
 key aspects of transparent news media
(Karlsson 2011, Taiminen, Luoma-aho et al. 2015)
 Social Contract Theory
▹ Readers may be more open towards native advertising when
they understand its function
(native advertising revenue funds the news websites)
(Gordon and De Lima‐Turner 1997, Zerba 2013, Gundlach and Hofmann 2017)

11. Ad recognition
Sponsorship Transparency
Credibility news websites
(in general)
Credibility advertisers
(in general)
Credibility
native advertising
(in general)
Partner content
Sponsored by (…)
Detailed disclosure:
explanation business
model
H3a
H3b
H3c
H3d
H3e

12. Ad recognition
Sponsorship Transparency
Credibility news websites
(in general)
Credibility advertisers
(in general)
Credibility
native advertising
(in general)
Detailed disclosure:
explanation authorship
RQ1a
Detailed disclosure:
explanation business
model
?
RQ1b
RQ1c
RQ1d
RQ1e
Difference between detailed disclosures?

13. Single-factor experiment: a test of 4 disclosures
1. Involvement of
an external party
Partner content
2. Paid nature +
name of the
advertiser
Sponsored by Spa Water
3. Detailed
information about
the authorship
Sponsored by Spa Water +
This sponsored article has been created for an advertiser.
The journalists of the news website have not been involved in the
creation of the content.
4. Detailed
disclosure about
news media’s
business models
Sponsored by Spa Water +
This sponsored article has been created for an advertiser.
The advertising revenues support the news website, helping us to
fund our journalism and to keep providing you your news.

15. Average age:
35 years
Min. age = 18
Max. age = 66
60.7%
female
75%
Higher
educated
456
participants
ANOVA
+
Hayes
Mediation
analyses

16. Results

17. Ad recognition
Partner
content
Sponsored
by Spa
Explanation
authorship
Explanation
business
model news
media
Ad recognition 60,2% a 76,3% b 81,0% c 85,8% c
Disclosure
recall
4,4% a 28,9% b 46,6% c 41,6% c
*Significant difference between cells with a different letter (p <.05)
 H1a: “Sponsored by Spa”  higher ad recognition than “partner content”
 H2a+ H3a: Both the explanation about authorship and the explanation about the
business model  higher ad recognition than ‘sponsored by Spa’
 RQ1a: No difference between the 2 detailed disclosures

18. Sponsorship Transparency
Partner content Sponsored by
Spa
Explanation
authorship
Explanation
business
model news
media
3.34a 4.16b 4.46c 4.64c
 H1b: “Sponsored by Spa” significantly more transparent than “partner content”
 H2b+ H3b: Both the explanation about authorship and the explanation about
the business model significantly more transparent than “sponsored by Spa” and
“partner content”
 RQ1b: No difference between the 2 detailed disclosures
*Seven-point scale. Significant difference between cells with a different letter (p < .05)

19. Partner content
(ref. category)
Sponsored by (…)
Detailed disclosure
authorship
Detailed disclosure
business model
news media
Credibility
native advertising
Sponsorship
Transparency
0.82***
1.12***
1.29***
.34***
-.20 NS
-.21 NS
-.24 NS
Credibility of native advertising:
 H1c, H2c, H3c, RQ1c: No direct relationship between disclosure type and credibility of native advertising:
F(3, 451) = 1.13, p = .336  BUT: indirect-only mediation effect:
NS = non-significant, *** = p < .001. Reference category: ‘partner content’.

20. Credibility of the advertisers
Partner content Sponsored by
Spa
Explanation
authorship
Explanation
business
model news
media
3.77a 3.77a 3.92b 4.14c
*Seven-point scale. Significant difference between cells with a different letter (p < .05)
 H1d: No difference between “Sponsored by Spa” and “partner content”
 H2d+ H3d: Both the explanation about authorship and the explanation about
the business model further increased advertiser credibility
 RQ3d: Advertiser credibility  (marginally) significantly higher (p = .038) for
explanation business model news media

21. Partner content
(ref. category)
Sponsored by (…)
Detailed disclosure
authorship
Detailed disclosure
business model
news media
Credibility
advertisers
Sponsorship
Transparency
0.82***
1.12***
1.29***
.29***
-.18 NS
-.15 NS
.05 NS
Credibility of the advertiser: full mediation
NS = non-significant, *** = p < .001. Reference category: ‘partner content’.

22. News website credibility
Partner content Sponsored by
Spa
Explanation
authorship
Explanation
business
model news
media
3.60a 3.64a 4.08c 3.89b
 H1e: No difference between “Sponsored by Spa” and “partner content”
 H2e+ H3e: Both the explanation about authorship and the explanation about the
business model further increased news website credibility (compared to “sponsored
by…”)
 RQ3e: News website credibility  (marginally) significantly higher (p = .036) for
explanation authorship
*Seven-point scale. Significant difference between cells with a different letter (p < .05)

23. Partner content
(ref. category)
Sponsored by (…)
Detailed disclosure
authorship
Detailed disclosure
business model
news media
Credibility
news websites
Sponsorship
Transparency
0.82***
1.12***
1.29***
.33***
-.24 NS
.12 NS
-.09 NS
News website credibility: full mediation
NS = non-significant, p < .001. Reference category: ‘partner content’.

24. Detailed
disclosure
Transparency
Ad recognition
Credibility of native ads,
advertisers and news websites
Conclusion
▹ Only direct positive effect on readers’ evaluations for detailed disclosures
▹ Transparency influences readers’ evaluations  in line with other recent study
(Campbell and Evans 2018)
▹ Detailed disclosures business model  more positive effect for advertisers
 implicit social contract
▹ Detailed disclosure authorship  more positive effect for news media
 autonomy and credibility of journalists

25. Limitations and future research
▹This study:
Only one disclosure position, size of disclosure, device and news website
▸Future research:
Other disclosure characteristics, combination of the detailed
disclosures, different types of news news websites
▹This study:
Fully focused on Sponsorship Transparency
▸Future research:
Interplay between ST and other factors

26. THANKS! 
Simone Krouwer, Prof. Dr. Karolien Poels & Prof. Dr. Steve Paulussen
Simone.Krouwer@uantwerpen.be @SimoneKrouwer

28. More elaborate disclosures…:
“Paid for and produced by brand X”
“Good journalism is expensive”
“No editorial staff has been involved”

30. Conclusion
Detailed disclosures can increase ad recognition, ST, and the credibility of
native advertising, advertisers and news media in general…
▹ Only direct positive effect on advertiser and news website credibility when a detailed
disclosure is provided
▹ Explanation business model = more positive effect for advertisers
 implicit social contract
▹ Explanation authorship = more positive effect for news media
 autonomy and credibility of journalists
Sponsorship Transparency plays a key role…
▹ All effects were fully mediated by Sponsorship Transparency
▹ In line with other recent research (Campbell and Evans 2018)

31. Ad recognition
partner content Sponsored by
Spa
Explanation
authorship
Explanation
business model
news media
60,2%a 76,3% b 81,0% c 85,8% c
*Er is een significant verschil tussen cellen met een verschillende letter (p <.05)
partner content Sponsored by
Spa
Explanation
authorship
Explanation
business model
news media
4,4%a 28,9% b 46,6% c 41,6%c
Disclosure recall
“Please explain why you think you have noticed an advertisement”
“Was there any advertising on the page you viewed?”

32. Disclosure type a path
(disclosure

ST)
b path
(ST -
credibility of
native ad)
c1 path
(direct effect
disclosure 
credibility of
native ad)
Indirect
effect
disclosure 
credibilitynati
ve ad via
ST
95% BC-CI
D1 (Sponsored by) .82*** .34*** -.20 NS .19 .050 to .344
D2 (Authorship
explanation)
1.12*** .34*** -.21 NS .31 .177 to .479
D3 (Business
model explanation)
1.29*** .34*** -.24 NS .33 .193 to .506
Credibiltiy of native advertising
NS = non-significant, *p <.05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Reference category: ‘partner content’.

33. Disclosure type a path
(disclosure

ST)
b path
(ST -
credibility of
native ad)
c1 path
(direct effect
disclosure 
credibility of
native ad)
Indirect
effect
disclosure 
credibilitynati
ve ad via
ST
95% BC-CI
D1 (Sponsored by)
.82*** .29*** -.18 NS .23 .138 to .351
D2 (Authorship
explanation) 1.12*** .29*** -.15 NS .32 .207 to .465
D3 (Business
model explanation) 1.29*** .29*** .05 NS .37 .238 to .522
Credibility of the advertiser
NS = non-significant, *p <.05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Reference category: ‘partner content’.