Deconstructing a Native Advertisement
A native ad is a form of online advertising that matches the look, feel and function of the media format it appears in. Native ads are designed to blend seamlessly into the platform they appear on, so they do not look like typical banner ads or pop-ups.
Rather than overtly promotional, native ads are more subtle. Native ads are used by publishers to monetise their platforms allowing their advertisers to reach audiences in a more engaging format. Common native ad formats include sponsored content articles, product listings, recommendation widgets, promoted social media posts, in-feed video ads, and more. But critics argue they can mislead users if their sponsored nature is not clearly communicated.
Is not properly labeling “sponsored content” as a native ad a form of deception?
Not properly labelling “sponsored content” as a native ad could certainly be considered a form of deception. Native advertising, by definition, matches the form and content of the surrounding media in which it appears. Without clear labelling, viewers may be unaware they are seeing a paid promotion rather than organic editorial content. Failing to identify native ads denies consumers the ability to discern marketing messages and enables deception by manipulating perceptions. Proper transparency through labelling, such as denoting “sponsored content,” is crucial for upholding ethics and trust. It demonstrates the publisher is being upfront about paid partnerships on their platform. Clear native ad identification also follows industry regulations in many jurisdictions. Ultimately, consumers have a right to know when they are being marketed to. Not properly disclosing native ads withholds this information, violates informed consent principles, and could erode publisher credibility over time. For native ads to be effective yet ethical, proper transparency through labelling is essential.
Our example native ad
I was sent this article (native ad) by an administrator at my school. It’s from Forbes, a usually reputable publisher. The title is “Educating For Our New Normal: How The End Of Illiteracy Can Begin Now.” So far so good. It was written by Richard Carranza, Chief of Strategy and Global Development at IXL Learning. After reviewing the “article,” I would consider it to be a native ad based on the following analysis:
It is presented in the same format and style as a typical Forbes article, matching the look and feel of editorial content on the site.
It focuses on promoting a product (IXL Learning) in a way that feels like an organic recommendation rather than an overt advertisement. Specifically, it advocates for the company’s technology as a solution to address literacy education issues.
The article is authored by an executive at IXL Learning. However, this connection is only lightly disclosed. You would have to know who / what IXL Learning is. The overall framing reads more like an objective opinion piece than a sponsored post.
There is a lack of clear labeling identifying it as a paid partnership or sponsored content. The only indication is the subtle “Council Post | Membership (Fee-Based)” tagline below the headline. Corporations pay a fee to be on this council, which gives them access to produce these native ads for publication.
It aims to provide “value” to the reader on the topic of education, rather than be a direct product pitch. However, the value rather coincidently aligns closely with IXL Learning's offerings.
Thus, the educational focus, author credibility, seamless integration into the Forbes site, and lack of overt promotion or sponsorship identification are hallmarks of a native ad. Whilst not overtly deceptive, clearer disclosure that this is sponsored content would make it more transparent to readers.
Bandwagoneering
If I were an average literacy specialist teacher, unaware this Forbes article was a native advertisement, I may have mistakenly considered it a trusted source. The educational focus and seamless integration into the publication could lend an air of credibility. Without realizing the author’s affiliation with IXL, I might think the views expressed represent objective assessments of the issues. This could make me more inclined to accept the arguments and solutions presented.
Specifically, the article advocates strongly for the discredited “science of reading” and so-called “structured literacy” approaches. As an average literacy specialist, I may feel compelled to implement these methods based on what appears to be expert validation from a reputable business publication. However, without realizing the content is sponsored by a company with much to gain, I could become subject to the bandwagon effect. This cognitive bias causes people to believe or support something because of its growing popularity, regardless of actual merit.
Once accepting the premises put forth in the native ad, I might then echo these views to colleagues and parents. Indeed, I received the ad from a “trusted source” within my professional network. This helps propagate support for the “science of reading” without deeper scrutiny into what the research truly demonstrates. A potential consequence is increased adoption of commercial literacy programs that align with these orthodoxies but lack valid evidence of effectiveness.
As such, mistaking a native ad for an objective article could shortcut critical analysis and make me more susceptible to bandwagon biases. This underscores the importance of transparency when presenting sponsored content related to academic standards and teaching methodologies. As educators, we must beware of potential biases and carefully vet sources, even those that appear reputable at first glance.
Thankfully, I’m an autistic literacy specialist
This paragraph really got my attention.
Forty-five states and Washington, D.C., have now passed at least one bill related to reforming reading instruction, with many of them emphasizing the science of reading. However, many educators are not fully trained on how to instruct using the latest research-based practices and are usually juggling competing priorities that make it difficult to quickly get up to speed.
The statement that 45 US states have passed bills emphasising the “science of reading” implies growing momentum and consensus around these methods. However, the number of legislatures adopting an idea does not necessarily reflect its inherent value or efficacy. This represents the bandwagon fallacy - assuming something has merit simply because it is popular.
In reality, there remains ongoing debate within the academic community about the “science of reading” and “structured literacy” approaches. Many educators, myself included, have expressed concerns about potential oversimplification of complex literacy development processes (or the ignoring of about 40% of the human population in such approaches). However, the paragraph frames criticism as stemming merely from lack of proper teacher training or competing priorities. This marginalizes substantive critiques and portrays adoption as inevitable rather than rationally determined.
Essentially, the paragraph leverages the bandwagon effect to portray the “science of reading” as the new orthodoxy in education policy. But wise instructional decisions consider the nuances of scholarly discourse, not just what is currently in vogue. As educators, we must be wary of claims that minimise legitimate disagreement among experts whilst appealing solely to the authority of public consensus. A more balanced analysis would better serve our students in the long run. That balanced view is found in my upcoming book, Holistic Language Instruction, as well as throughout the pages of this Substack.
The new orthodoxy?!
The portrayal of the “science of reading” as an unquestioned new orthodoxy risks reducing what should be vigorous debate down to a mandated, monolithic approach to literacy education. However, we must ask - mandated by whom? When policies emphasize commercial literacy programs aligned with trendy methods, it serves the capitalist interests of education technology companies.
By leveraging native advertising and the bandwagon effect, these corporations can deceptively shape consensus around practices that boost their profits, not necessarily serve student needs. Their shareholder priorities become enshrined as best practice; their products as essential teaching tools. Educators are then compelled to adopt these market-validated approaches without exercising professional discretion.
In this frame, literacy policy is not driven by research but distorted by corporate lobbyists and promotional messaging. Capital reigns whilst unbiased academic discourse suffers. As educators, we must regain control of pedagogical conversations and centre balanced critical analyses, not market-friendly orthodoxies. Our students deserve an education system free from capitalist capture, where multiple perspectives on literacy instruction can coexist.
Toxic cultures
In many districts that contract with companies like IXL Learning (including mine), their platforms unfortunately become mandated across schools. This occurs even when some teachers (like me) notice their particular students struggling with the program. The district-wide adoption creates an internal bandwagon effect, where use of the product is seen as required. Teachers (like me) who question this or advocate tailored supplemental resources for their learners may then face pressure from administrators or colleagues to just “stay the course.”
This enforced conformity breeds resentment among educators (like me) who feel disempowered to address observed student needs. Constructive dissent gets suppressed whilst the company maintains its contract, and thus its profits, through mandated usage quotas. Teachers become disengaged deliverers of one-size-fits-all curricula rather than empowered professionals. Students suffer from an ill-fitting but inescapable program.
In this toxic culture, profits and public perception take priority over teacher autonomy and student outcomes. Structural biases impose a facade of success that covers real problems. Instead, we must foster school cultures that honour teacher expertise, allow flexibility based on student needs, and promote selection of resources based on merit not mandates. Educators and learners will thrive when freed from the constraints of bandwagon orthodoxies.
Decoupling capitalism from education by leaning into autistic joy
As autistic professionals, we have a unique vantage point from which to confront the capitalist capture of learning. Unburdened by conformist tendencies, we can lean into our autistic joy of deeply pursuing knowledge wherever it leads. We can model this intrinsically-driven learning for students, centering the processes not just outcomes. Our fluid intelligence and systemizing strengths equip us to unpack literacy’s complexity without reductionist solutions.
By sharing this approach openly, autistic educators defy the commodification of education which favors purchased products over human relationships. Our learning community can be fueled by service, not by profit. We can inspire students through compassion and creativity unfettered by corporate constraints.
With ingenuity and intensity, we can design new frameworks that better meet all students’ needs. Our hands-on adaptations empower personalized progress. We can collaborate with colleagues to customize curricula, not conform to mass market materials. In doing so, we chip away at the façade that literacy solutions come pre-packaged.
Ultimately, by embracing the diversity of minds and perspectives, we autistic educators can help decouple the notion that quality education must be bought rather than cultivated through community. Ours is a model of lifelong learning beyond capitalism.