The New York Times revealed a brand new website on 8 January 2014, replete with responsive design and native advertising.

As I mentioned in my article from earlier this week, native design: 12 examples of good and bad practice, it seems that with The New York Times adoption of sponsored content, 2014 will bring this marketing trend to larger, more mainstream publishing sites

Dell is the first company to take advantage of The New York Times new advertising model, with a six-figure, three month long deal. The deal also includes display ads as well as sponsored content.

Here’s a look at the current New York Times homepage.

Two fairly subtle, but not indiscreet ads for Dell straddle the The New York Times logo. A rudimentary scroll down the homepage doesn’t actually reveal any sponsored content though. It’s hosted under a separate URL called

Here’s a look at one of The New York Time’s first sponsored posts since the redesign.

As you can see, the light blue box around the post reads ‘paid for and posted by Dell’, the darker blue box carries the Dell logo, then within the article itself where it says who it’s written by there’s another Dell Logo. Each of the logos is a clickable link to the Dell homepage, much like the banner ads.

At the bottom of the article there is this disclaimer: "This page was produced by the Advertising Department of The New York Times in collaboration with Dell. The news and editorial staffs of The New York Times had no role in its preparation."

Let there be no doubt that this is sponsored content. The New York Times couldn’t be more explicit in this.

How about the content though, does it match the tone of voice that readers of The New York Times have come to expect?

Personally, I don’t think it’s the most well written or insightful article ever written, and it certainly doesn’t carry the weight of The New York Times non-sponsored news items, but it does articulate a modern trend with well researched data and relevant interviews. It’s also not written in order to blatantly promote the brand within the text itself.

According to Ad Age, this article was written a by a freelancer, not from someone embedded within Dell. The story itself was also pitched to Dell by The New York Times ‘content studio’ and approved by the company. The New York Times obviously is interested in keeping things tonally Times-esque.

Paid posts will also live forever on the site, even when the partnership is finished and the display ads have disappeared, but will not be indexed by Google in the same way as news stories.

As far as social media goes, paid posts will not be shared via The New York Times’ Twitter or Facebook page. Any sponsored stories that are shared by readers through the article’s social buttons will generate an automatic amendment that states “paid post” in the tweet.

The New York Times seems to be making its native advertising strategy as ethical and transparent as it possibly can.

There’s a particularly venomous article currently on ZDNet that claims that “The New York Times has sold its soul for a handful of beans.” I would suggest that the idea of a publisher “selling one’s soul” for the sake of a different advertising practice is woefully naïve. Publishers need money to operate, advertising provides revenue. Display ads are increasingly failing to provide that revenue, therefore another approach is necessary.

Native advertising is one solution. Time will tell if it’s the best solution or even an effective one, but at the moment it’s keeping publishers in business and keeping staff employed.

The article goes on to suggest that the practice of native advertising is “exceptionally harmful because it makes it seem as if all content is corrupt.” I think it’s clear the article operates from an advertorial standpoint, and distinctly not from an editorial one.

However what if tomorrow, or at any point during Dell’s three month campaign, a story breaks revealing something negative about Dell? What if massive corruption is uncovered? A global conspiracy to sell exploding computers to children?

Obviously I'm writing this for comedic effect, but how about something more real world or ambiguous. A lawsuit against an executive? How will The New York Times report this?

I'm sure there are contracts and deals in place to avoid any such editorial turmoil, but it's interesting to speculate about the outcomes and possible tarnishings of reputation.

For more about native advertising, read this article on what is native advertising and why do you need it.

Christopher Ratcliff

Published 9 January, 2014 by Christopher Ratcliff

Christopher Ratcliff is the editor of Methods Unsound. He was the Deputy Editor of Econsultancy. You can follow him on Twitter or connect via Google+ and LinkedIn

686 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (4)


Mark D

I'm possibly misunderstanding the potential outcome for Dell, but won't this kind of 'advertorial' be deterimental to Dell once Google spiders the content?

Obviously, I'm assuming that The Washington Post hasn't utilised all the available options which tells Google not to follow or index this advertising (or at least what's current until the next Google update), but I think we have all seen examples of major publishers who don't toe the thin line between benefit for their advertisers and penalisation from the mighty Google.

I seem to remember that their was a view that any advertising or Press Release which dares to 'promote' an organisation, product or brand , and is present on a high profile, high traffic site, could be deemed to be worthy of a Google penalty.

I wonder if this potential outcome for Dell has been mitigated or will they ultimately be clobbered!

over 4 years ago


Louie Chow, Consultant at louiechow

This, to me, does not categorise as 'native advertising'. Not the best kind or the contemporary definition of native advertising anyway. This is simply sponsored ads in a prominent position. This format, or variations of this, existed for a long time. The best native advertising is technically not 'advertising' (not pushing out messages), it should be content created with the specific media or channel in mind, and fully complement the context. I think it's high time to come up with a new name for the real 'native advertising'!

over 4 years ago

Chris Frost

Chris Frost, Senior Product Manager at Schibsted Media Group

Thanks for a great, balanced article Christopher.

You're right to point out the often ignored fact that publishers have to pay the bills and so many of them (particularly the old world newspaper publishers) are struggling to do so in a digital world. Last time I checked most journalists don't work for free and many of the greatest newspaper brands face an uncertain future - the cash has to come from somewhere.

All advertising should be ethical and transparent if you want your readers to trust your editorial, regardless of whether it's native, Adsense/sponsored links, affiliate links, banner ads, reader offers, advertorials or anything else.

Re: your point on the trade off between a current advertising deal and it's impact on editorial related to that brand I don't think this is new or specific to native. Many publishers have had long term commercial relationships/sponsorships with brands that have the potential to clash with editorial. The Dell homepage ad's are sponsorship first and foremost, delivered via a native format rather than in standard IAB formats and banner slots.

over 4 years ago


Erica Ayotte

'Native advertising' (or whatever this example is properly defined as) isn't new and neither is advertising's role in sponsoring journalism. I guess what is new is this specific combination on a platform like the New York Times.

However, it seems like the ZDNet article makes a big assumption--that consumers will consider all brand-generated content as "corrupt." If that were the case, content marketing wouldn't exist.

I think the effectiveness of this type of advertising is contingent on the brand doing the advertising, what kind of relationship they have with their consumers, and, of course, the topic of the content.

If it "feels" disingenuous to the consumer (say, Wal-Mart writing about employment best practices) then they ("they" being both the brand and the platform) can expect backlash because it's trying to push a perception that's so contrary to the brand image.

I think it has a chance at being effective. But the NYT (and any other site doing this) should choose their advertisers very carefully. If it's simply a matter native advertising going to the highest bidder, it will go the way of the display ad.

over 4 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.