
Show HN: Detect articles with corporate sponsors - typpo
http://www.ianww.com/ad-detector/
======
sp332
John Oliver gets into how bad the practice has become lately in a recent Last
Week Tonight episode:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc)

~~~
mast
That's good. It reminds me of a recent blog post by Yoni Freedhoff about
nutritionists posting sponsored tweets. Often the disclosure is not at all
obvious.

[http://www.weightymatters.ca/2014/07/7-nutrition-hashtags-
yo...](http://www.weightymatters.ca/2014/07/7-nutrition-hashtags-you-need-to-
be.html)

------
andrewljohnson
This is cool, but a lot of PR is even more devious! At my first job ever, I
was sometimes paid to simultaneously ghost-write stories by executives, then
pitch the stories to magazines. So, it was still crap advertorials
masquerading as content, but even harder to detect.

I wonder if you could do a linguistic analysis to gauge bias and ad-iness, and
show a score. Gather a corpus of paid advertorials and compare to ostensibly
unpaid material.

~~~
click170
This I don't mind.

At my company though, those articles are ghost-written, and then they ask
every employee to retweet and share it on Facebook and LinkedIn. It hasn't
gotten to the point where we get in trouble for not doing it, but I fear that
point is quickly approaching.

One line that I won't cross is if they start requiring me to post to social
media using my personal accounts, and I will change jobs over it.

------
sireat
I remember that a respected West Coast newspaper contacted my tiny retail
store about doing some advertising with them in the mid 90s. The sales person
actually said it that if I placed a certain amount of advertising with them, I
would have a reporter come out and do a human interest story for the local
section of the paper.

Talk about native advertising!

Since then I've learned to expect that at least 80% of the stories in papers
are planted stories. That is they are stories whose ideas and information is
provided by PR firms.

The best ones are the ones where it is not obvious.

A recent crazy but is it? example: national quasi-public radio here in Eastern
Europe has been running reports on
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investm...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership)

They sent a reporter to USA to interview what seems to be overwhelming pro
TTIP sources.

A public radio station struggling for funds sending a reporter on a month long
junket? Something does not vibe right here.

I am hoping the financing comes from some EU public fund and not something
even more nefarious.

This reminds of the time that US paid journalists if they run anti-drug
stories.

Here's a very leftist source but I assume the facts are correct:
[http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/01/will-j13.html](http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/01/will-j13.html)

------
click170
Can it perhaps have an option to strip native advertising from my web
experience completely?

I don't want to see links to native advertising. I don't want to see the short
leader blurbs about them showing up when I visit the front page of other news
sites. I don't want to even be aware that native advertising exists, I want it
completely torn out of any article or website that I go to.

Ironically I would likely even pay a small one-time fee for such an
extension/program.

------
cheald
I work in media (for Mashable, specifically, though not in an editorial
capacity), and I'm puzzled as to how people are getting native advertising so
wrong. I'm aware that my paycheck is linked to this sort of thing, so full
biases disclosed, but I really do think that there's a misunderstanding of
what it actually _is_. There's this tendency to conflate "someone paid money
to have their name attached to this article" with "someone paid to have a good
article written about them", and they're _wildly_ different.

(I should disclaim that these are my personal opinions as someone in the
industry, and I don't claim to speak on behalf of my employer)

"Native advertising" like _The Atlantic_ 's Scientology advertorial is
unequivocally bad. It's sneaky, it's underhanded, it purports to be unbiased
reporting when it's anything but. However, that is really the exception rather
than the rule. (It's worth noting that this has been the status quo in print
magazines for quite some time; brands provide 1- or 2-page ads which are
presented to look like an article that belongs in the magazine, with a tiny
bit of "This is an advertisement" text stuffed in a corner. I'll scan a few if
folks are interested. They're massively worse than the sort of native
advertising under discussion here.)

"Good" native advertising is the practice of letting brands pay to attach
their names to thematically-relevant articles, whose content is _not_ bought,
directed by, or advertising the brand who wishes to advertise on it. This pays
really well for media outlets, converts well for advertisers, and results in
less obtrusive, annoying advertising for readers. For example, from the FTC
workshop on native advertising:

> [An example] is American Express, who came to us looking to reach female
> small business owners. So what we created on Mashable was a site called --
> sorry, a content series, including videos and articles and info-graphics
> called "The Female Founders Series" where we profiled female entrepreneurs
> in technology, profiles and videos and vignettes, that we published on
> Mashable that were presented by American Express.

([http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1713...](http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/171321/final_transcript_1.pdf)
page 43)

In this case, profiling female startup founders is directly in Mashable's
wheelhouse; it is relevant to our audience (which is socially and
technologically savvy, young, and a majority of whom are female), and it's
relevant to our advertiser. At no point are Amex's services pushed or touted
or even talked about. Amex doesn't get to write the articles or have any
editorial control over them. Our KPIs are typically engagement, so in order to
deliver on our end of the deal, we have to provide content that people enjoy
and want to share. The sponsorship is clearly disclosed in the interest of
transparency, but at no point does the sponsor get to inject their brand,
agenda, or marketing fluff into the actual content; it is always adjacent to
it in the form of "sponsored by" highlights and traditional ad units.

The key difference here is that Amex can say "We want our name to be in front
of people for every page view of this series of content", rather than "We are
going to do a traditional ad buy which will be demographically targeted to US
females 19-30 years old, which may or may not end up associated with this
series of content". They can't say "Write about this founder, and tell the
story of how Amex made her business succeed"; we flat out will not do that.

I'm of the opinion that this kind of advertising is actually _better_ for all
involved, as long as editorial independence is maintained. All media is
sponsored at some level - advertising drives the entire industry - so if the
benchmark for "good" content is "content that advertisers don't have any stake
in", then...well, good luck. Advertisements that advertisers push through
otherwise-respected media outlets in the guise of articles written by the
outlet from a journalistic standpoint are bad, but they are the tiny minority
of native advertising.

~~~
crystaln
Do you think that brands paying for their name to be associated with articles
does not influence the content and quality of the journalism?

Do you think a series about solar energy sponsored by BP is not going to be
less critical of BP?

While the distinction you make is valid in theory, it requires a legitimate
firewall between advertisers and journalists, a safeguard that is in rapid
decline in most places.

Personally, I presume any sponsored content is influenced by the sponsor.

~~~
cheald
The intent is that it does not influence the content and quality of the
journalism. How well that is actually maintained is up to the sales and
editorial teams striking the deal, of course.

A good team won't take a deal that will tie their hands; if BP says "We want a
solar energy series, but you can't say anything bad about us", then that deal
isn't likely to be struck. We might pitch them on an alternate series that
doesn't risk putting them in the crosshairs, but letting the brand have any
say in the content is a big no-no, and the sales team works to try to find
advertising opportunities that work well with advertisers, rather than working
against them.

Just personally, I think it's healthy to assume that any sponsored content is
influenced by the sponsor, but I don't think it's valid to write off any
content that happens to have a sponsorship attached to it as invalid,
inaccurate, or biased. Be suspicious, but equating native advertising with PR
dronespeak is flawed.

~~~
michaelt
BP wouldn't say "we want a solar energy series but you can't say anything bad
about us".

They'd say "we want a solar energy series, and we might want another in three
months depending on results". The writers would simply not bite the hand that
feeds them.

~~~
cheald
BP doesn't talk to the writers; they talk to sales. The hand that feeds the
writers is very specifically not the advertiser. I can't speak for other
companies, but our sales team is good enough to recognize that an alternative
energy series sponsored by BP is ripe with potential for conflict, and would
likely steer them in a different direction.

I really do hear what you're saying, and I 110% agree that it's a legitimate
concern. If I saw a post on solar energy sponsored by BP, I'd be looking for
the hook, too. That's why you need a good business development and sales team;
recognizing those conflicts and working around them before they become an
issue is a critical component in making this kind of thing actually work.

~~~
opendais
[http://mashable.com/2013/06/25/call-to-
hacktion/](http://mashable.com/2013/06/25/call-to-hacktion/)
[http://mashable.com/people/lauren-drell/](http://mashable.com/people/lauren-
drell/) [http://mashable.com/2013/08/16/hdhacks-
recap/](http://mashable.com/2013/08/16/hdhacks-recap/)

So they talk to a "Branded Editor" who writes the intro and then you post it
as a series of native articles which is just marketing content straight from
Home Depot.

It seems BP would be able to do the same thing which is effectively identical.

Maybe this seems fine to you but it doesn't to me.

It is one thing to have what are essentially links to other sites as "native
advertising" its quite another to let them shill on your site. Imo anyway.

~~~
cheald
This is standard business development - mutually-beneficial partnerships which
result in business gains for both parties involved. The series you linked is,
IMO, a pretty decent example of native advertising. Original content was
produced, the partnership with Home Depot was very clearly and loudly
disclosed, at no point were there "Here are the links to the Home Depot(R)
items you need to build these things, go buy them" links stuffed into the
content, and the content is related to Home Depot's business (and may in fact
incentivize people to go to Home Depot to buy things, the horror!) and yet is
not "Home Depot is the best, Lowes sux, go buy all your stuff at Home Depot".

To let a brand "shill on your site" is called advertising. It's fine to hate
it, but it is what it is. At question here isn't the practice, but rather, the
degree to which it's made clear to the reader what is advertiser-produced and
what is not, and the question of whether advertising copy is being pitched as
not-advertising or not.

Given the chance, how would you do it better?

~~~
opendais
> Given the chance, how would you do it better?

> It is one thing to have what are essentially links to other sites as "native
> advertising"

You already have "Presented by" posts that link offsite. Only use those types
of "native" ad units.

It works with Google, it works on Reddit, etc.

It has no conflict of interest issue.

You don't have the issue of "Presented by" not being interpreted as "Paid for
by" [which is what it is and not everyone will realize it]. Etc.

Get rid of the shill syndication that is basically "reporting on the market we
sell stuff in".

But hey, if you are happy with it, go for it. I'll just go elsewhere.

------
suprgeek
Great Idea - I think this really should be integrated with
[http://allaregreen.us/](http://allaregreen.us/)

AllareGreen is a "..free browser extension for Chrome, Safari, and Firefox
that exposes the role money plays in Congress. Displays on any web page
detailed campaign contribution data for every Senator and Representative,
including total amount received and breakdown by industry and by size of
donation."

In fact I am rudimentarily working on a Bias Detector type application that
shows, if it is sponsored content, if the main principals mentioned in it are
on the payroll of companies etc (does some other things such as Sentiment
analysis, chronology ordering etc).

~~~
TeMPOraL
Can you tell more about that application? Is it going to be open source? Is
there any way I could contribute?

------
veb
I'm not sure that I like this. I know it's not really like Adblock or whatever
it's called.

I _never_ notice advertisements, and I am surprised more people aren't the
same. You've been doing the same thing for years -- it's so easy to tell
what's content and who's not.

I so occasionally get caught by the very clever ones - and so what? If you're
big on privacy, I guess you would care more tun I would

As I'm growing older I don't mind donating small amounts of monies to good
websites and projects. I just wish more people were like me in that regards --
it'd definitely be more profitable IMO. Has anyone got any experience in this
(a/b testing maybe?!). I think this behaviour came from the ease of buying
from Google Play or the App store... It's almost like, "I just spent $35 on
apps last night?"

Some corporate advertisements really are stupid. I just imagine someone's
crated the perfect advert and the client goes, "make it pop!!!". Those are the
ones I would not mind vanishing - but if it's helping the website then I'm all
for it -- my continued visits are purely based on their content and ease of
use.

~~~
sp332
This is an ad. [http://ad-assets.nytimes.com/paidpost/dell/will-
millennials-...](http://ad-assets.nytimes.com/paidpost/dell/will-millennials-
ever-completely-shun-the-office.html#.Us2ZbfRDvni) The entire article is an ad
- you're saying you wouldn't notice this? The whole point of native
advertising is that it's not easy anymore to tell what's advertising and what
isn't. Only 41% of visitors realized that native ads were advertising at all.
[http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press...](http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-072214)

~~~
veb
Thank you heaps for your comment! I'm not quite sure why I am being down-voted
though. To clarify my browsing habits are at the point where if I do see an
intrusive advertisement or something that is just words rather than a coherent
bit of content I'm looking for.

I clicked your link and immediately closed it. Then opened, looked closely,
and my eyes did not catch on to anything so I closed it again.

Your second link was very informative, interesting stuff though.

The rest of you can't tell me your browsing habits have not evolved enough to
know what is which and this is that?

~~~
sp332
How would you even know? I can say that mine have not. Ars Technica started
cross-posting articles from Wired, which I would rather avoid. But for weeks,
I would only realize that I had clicked one when I got to the bottom of the
article. It's just exhausting to check all the bylines all the time.

------
viggity
nice, how are you doing the detection. do you have to some logic specific to
each of the major "news" sites, or is it more generalized than that?

~~~
sp332
Your other post (the one you edited) is dead because it was a duplicate of
this one. You should delete that one and edit this one instead.

~~~
viggity
I've got an HN chrome extension that might have caused the glitch. oops. I'll
leave it alone as slang800 answered it. thanks!

------
EyeballKid
Cool - will definitely install!

I've been working on some projects along similar lines. First one is
[http://churnalism.com/extension](http://churnalism.com/extension)

Browser extensions which check news articles against a central database of
press releases, and can highlight shared text. Disclaimers: It's pretty UK-
centric and I think the infrastructure needs a lot more work. I'm somewhat
hesitant to expose it to HN at all... but hey :-)

There is also [http://unsourced.org](http://unsourced.org), which lets you
attach warning labels onto news articles. There's a browser extension for that
too, but the whole project is pretty quiescent right now while I work on other
things. But I've got a lot of plans for both these projects...

Not one of mine, but for a more US-oriented tool, also check out:
[http://churnalism.sunlightfoundation.com/](http://churnalism.sunlightfoundation.com/)
(again a website + browser extension combo)

------
dbbolton
I don't think I need a browser extension to tell me that the bulk of content
on the example sites they show (especially Forbes and Buzzfeed) is sponsored.

I'm more interested to see how it performs on less obvious sites that at least
maintain an air of journalistic integrity.

~~~
slang800
you can read the logic here: [https://github.com/typpo/ad-
detector/blob/master/src/rules.j...](https://github.com/typpo/ad-
detector/blob/master/src/rules.js)

~~~
dbbolton
I was more or less criticizing their presentation of their product rather than
the actual product, i.e. I think they could use better examples.

~~~
calbear81
The examples were done on the most trafficked sources first since a lot of
people visit these sites frequently. Anyone can contribute new rules for
matching and detecting advertorials.

------
api
I would like to see a lot more projects along this line of thinking.

------
seanp2k2
Nice. I'll check this out. I was also hoping that it did some type of
heuristic detection, but I know how hard that can be to get right.

------
cheepin
If there's anything worse than the giant banner ads, it's the ones that trick
you into clicking them.

------
corbinpage
Great idea!

Installed.

------
sbierwagen
That's cute. Installed.

