Yves here. Quelle surprise! It turns out that reporters and editors know much better than advertisers what sort of stories get reader attention: “If it bleeds, it leads. Yet despite advertiser fond wishes, ads by fluffy lifestyle pieces get no more attention than ones next to hard news. That means advertiser prohibitions against putting their promotions next to upsetting content works against them as well as against the media performing their purported role of keeping the public well informed.
By Andrey Simonov, Associate Professor Columbia University; Tommaso Valletti Professor of Economics Imperial College London Business School, Professor of Economics University Of Rome Tor Vergata; and Andre Veiga, Assistant Professor Imperial College London. Originally published at VoxEU
Advertisers are sometimes reluctant to feature their products alongside serious news items, fearing the products will acquire negative associations. This column describes an experiment in which participants read a range of articles with ads placed beside them. Using non-intrusive eye-tracking technology, the authors measured the attention readers paid to each article and advertisement. Articles that captured a reader’s attention increased their attention to ads on the same page, enhancing brand recall and purchase probability. But the type of content – ‘hard’ versus ‘soft’ news – had no impact on an ad’s effectiveness.
Advertisers’ reluctance to feature their products and services alongside sensitive news items has alarming implications for editorial freedom. Advertising ‘block lists’ could weaken media appetite to cover hard-hitting events, and potentially water down the news agenda, as online publishers and platforms chase ad-generated revenue. Companies use block lists of subjects or words to prevent their brands appearing beside news they deem unpalatable – terrorism or sex, for instance.
But critics say these lists are a blunt tool with an unintended consequence: preventing ads from appearing next to highly popular items, making fearful brands miss out on exposure. Previous research reveals that news media outlets tweak their content to suit advertisers’ preferences to avoid upsetting businesses (Beattie 2020, Beattie et al. 2021).
This practice became more evident during the early days of the pandemic, when Covid-19 dominated the news. During spring 2020, individuals were spending enormous amounts of time online, and visits to online media sites soared by 50% (ComScore 2020). Yet after two decades of growth, advertising revenues that spring fell by 23–35% (Statista 2023).
Why the Substantial Fall in Ad Earnings?
This drop can’t be explained by the economic turmoil of the pandemic alone. Shrinking spending on advertising was also a result of commercial fears that brands would somehow acquire negative associations linked to the ‘hard’ news of the day.
With a novel field experiment, we’ve leveraged recent advances in eye-tracking technology to show that the fear fuelling block lists is misplaced. We do not address block lists applied to pornographic or terrorist content, but have focused solely on advertisers’ willingness to feature products alongside ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ news.
Previous research has examined how time spent on a webpage where an ad is displayed affects participants’ recall of the advertised brands (Danaher and Mullarkey 2003, Goldstein et al. 2011, 2015, Uhl et al. 2020). We are the first to show directly – rather than deduce – how people’s gaze flitted to and lingered on the ads, and link this to the accompanying content. New eye-tracking technology has made this possible, as it can measure readers’ habits in a natural rather than lab environment. To our knowledge, we are the first to link the impact of news content on advertising in this way, and revisit the myth that hard news hurts brands.
In our recent paper (Simonov et al. 2023), we show that not only do readers pay more attention to ads that feature alongside more captivating articles; we also show that ads placed beside captivating articles were more effective in inducing purchases.
How Did We Do This?
Using technology provided by Lumen Research, which processes high-resolution images to calculate an individual’s gaze and eye movements, we were able to gauge precisely how long people spent reading selected articles, and how much attention they paid to the ads displayed alongside those articles (see Figure 1). Previous eye-tracking studies have required expensive lab equipment. In our experiment, the setup mimicked everyday experiences of reading news online, on both desktop and mobile devices.
Figure 1 Example of the heat map
Note: Red/Orange colour means higher gaze probability
To do this, we recruited more than 1000 subjects from the UK and US and asked them to read a selection of nine recent articles – a mix of hard news (such as coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic and the racial justice protests of summer 2020) and soft news (largely celebrities, entertainment, and lifestyle). We sourced pieces from both left and right leaning papers – The Guardian and The Daily Mail in the UK; The New York Times and USA Today in the US. Ads featured recognisable brands tailored to each country – from Costa to Dunkin’ Donuts, and H&M to the GAP – and appeared at random alongside articles. Participants were unaware at the time of the experiment which outcomes we were measuring.
Our experiment allowed us to measure how engaged readers were in the article, and how much time they looked at the ads as a result. Our main finding – that ads are just as effective whether they sit alongside hard or soft news, and that engaging content generates attention to ads and influences subsequent purchase decisions regardless of its subject – challenges the rationale of block lists.
Individuals were offered a choice between cash or a voucher for one of the advertised brands, allowing us to gauge changes in willingness to pay for the brand in response to ad exposure. This revealed a clear link: the more attention readers paid to advertising, the more likely they were to remember and then buy that brand, regardless of whether the ad had appeared alongside hard news. On average, every 2.76 seconds of attention paid to an ad increased the probability of purchase by about 2%. Thus, we proved that advertising alongside hard news has no discernible impact on an individual’s decision to buy that brand as a result, once we controlled for the amount of time individuals spend looking at an article. In other words, what matters is how engaging the article is, not whether or not it is hard news.
If we can debunk the rationale for the widespread use of block lists, this could help media outlets resist pressure from advertisers and continue to report on hard hitting subjects.
This conclusion also casts doubt on the value of clickbait-style headlines. Received wisdom has it that once readers are lured towards what proves to be a flimsy story, they may focus more on an ad in the absence of engaging content. But our research suggests this isn’t so – the less captivating the story, the less engaged a reader will be in any accompanying ad.
We have also validated a method for assessing ad effectiveness that is able to measure whether a reader is paying attention rather than simply leaving a webpage open, and a new means for assessing whether this translates to real-world decisions.
Our results could overestimate the effectiveness of ads on purchases – participants were asked to make an immediate purchase decision, whereas in reality individuals may only have the opportunity to purchase a product some time after seeing the ad.
On the other hand, these ads weren’t tailored to our readers’ preferences. Software that targets content and ads according to individual consumer tastes could in fact boost the impact of ads, meaning we might be underestimating their effectiveness.
We also note that individuals spent slightly less overall time reading hard news – but we calculated that this was easily offset by the more powerful impact of the accompanying ads. This shorter attention may have been prompted by a saturation of news around Covid-19, rather than a reflection on appetites for hard news.
Establishing a robust method to quantify digital attention with precision has opened the door to new lines of investigation.
We need a better grasp of how political beliefs impact individuals’ preference for content, and vice versa. Only at the end of our experiment did we ask participants about their political leanings, and results revealed that they prefer content that suits their politics. Guardian readers didn’t stay long with Daily Mail articles, for instance.
Now that technology could allow platforms to track readers’ attention, does this hand them uncomfortable levels of power? In our case, we were measuring the ‘spillover’ attention that news content directed toward ads. But could this spillover be harnessed instead by more sinister material, such as propaganda and other radical political content, fuelling the recent ascent of populist parties (e.g. Danieli et al. 2023)? Some authoritarian countries are investing in entertainment and bundling it with propaganda, suggesting that such spillovers are already exploited (e.g. Simonov and Rao 2022). Platforms have great power over what readers consume. What impact could this power have on readers’ opinions – and more widely, on democracies?
See original post for references
Media integrity? Now there’s a quaint concept…
You beat me to it, my sentiments exactly. The Mass Media Cartel has become a laughingstock, especially the past 20 years or so.
On the other hand, it is a great source of satire, parody and tragic humor – George Carlin would have a field day if he were still alive.
Why we fight the Censorship Industrial Complex.
Really nice graphic along with the article, this should be a poster placed in every newsroom.
They lost me at “Using non-intrusive eye-tracking technology.”
Much, if not most, of the online advertising space ecology is fraudulent.
Additionally, it appears that contextual ads, where the ads delivered are driven by page content, rather than Google/Facebook stalker ads are more effective.
The example given is a rather small sample, Dutch broadcaster NPO, but it appears to me that the driver for profile driven ads is market share protection: Because Google & Facebook & Apple have accumulated such detailed dossiers on internet users, it becomes difficult for a startup ad supplier to compete.
If one goes to the older style contextual advertising, a new entrant just needs some better algorithms, and lower prices, easy, peasy.
Of course just because someone looks at an ad for longer than two seconds doesn’t necessarily mean they will by the product. Is there any data that shows this to be the case?
All the more reason to use ad blocks, and boycott the BS as much as possible. Dystopia Minimizing Strategies
I have developed what I would call a Darwinian evolution type resistance to ads and cookies. When a site blocks a page and demands an answer to “accept cookies “ or “not accept cookies“, I immediately shut it off. My interaction lasts for less than one second as opposed to 5 or 10 or more it would take me to check what the site may want from me, or a minute or more if I really felt like investigating their “privacy policies” and “associated vendors’ policies” and so on.
My favourite passtime, Formula 1, is always recorded and never watched in real time as a strategy of avoidance of suffocation by advertising (strict information blackouts apply in Dandy household on Sundays). However, even the recordings are infested with adverts. What happens is, I start watching, and as soon as an advert invades my TV, I fast forward in a Darwinian adaptation fashion. However I also inevitably overshoot, so, out of the say seven of the roughly eight minutes sessions of the condensed highlights, I am left with seven of four or five minutes sessions and go through the whole two hours race in half an hour. This all used to be more exciting anyway when I watched people like Senna, Arnoux, Mansell or Schumacher, but that’s another story I suppose.
Anyway, with my Active Darwinian approach, I get to win win win, and I don’t get my brainwaves polluted with the rubbish dross crap that the purveyors of rubbish dross crap masquerading as real life productive services providers, desperately try and ram down my throat.
I was talking to a Gen Z’er today about related issues, and he says that he (and I assume other members of his generation) are so drenched with advertising (from birth?), he simply “tunes it out.” Hence the rise of influencers? And probably explains why the term “going viral” has become a a meme and why ads seem to have become increasingly shrill.