• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About

Neville Hobson

www.nevillehobson.com

  • Podcasts
  • Library

SNCR fake news study: high stakes for marketers in survey findings

December 11, 2017 by Neville Hobson 

digital-marketing

You can summarise what marketers think about fake news with this – they are ambivalent about what ought to change, and are reluctant to alter their own business practices.

That’s a key finding from the results of an online survey-based research study carried out between August-November 2017 by The Society for New Communications Research of The Conference Board (SNCR).

Led by SNCR Fellow Jeff Pundyk, a former Senior Vice President at The Economist, the prime purpose of the research project is to explore businesses’ contribution to the problem of fake news – particularly how ad-supported media models enable it – and what marketing and communications professionals can do about it. (The research team comprises a number of SNCR Fellows including me.)

The online survey measured the awareness, attitudes and actions to address the problem of fake news by marketing and communications professionals – in particular, those who have direct budget or management responsibility for paid content marketing, paid social, native and programmatic advertising.

Among the overall findings:

  • 56 percent of marketers cite editorial content as the source of fake news
  • 40 percent cite native advertising or paid content marketing as the source of fake news
  • If their ads appear adjacent to fake news, over 80 percent of marketers believe their brands will be harmed by the affiliation
  • Fewer than half (42 percent) say that they were aware of ads adjacent to fake news content
  • Nearly 70 percent say they have a negative or very negative impression of the advertiser in those positions
  • 20 percent say it erodes consumer trust in the brand
  • And nearly half say they do not know all the sites where their advertising runs

Coming to Terms with Fake News

In his initial report, Pundyk says that when asked who should take the lead in solving the problem, the highest proportion of survey respondents (83%) said publishers and media companies.

whoshouldtakethelead

Running a close second to that clear majority view was social media platforms (73%), with technology partners (56%) coming third.

The overall response mix that includes brands/advertisers (53%), search platforms (52%) and agencies (49%) were sufficiently close to each other to suggest ambivalence about what needs to change for marketers to effectively address the genuine issue of fake news.

That said, Pundyk notes that many in the industry are starting to take on the issue.

He cites Proctor & Gamble (P&G), the world’s largest advertiser, who cut $140 million from its quarterly ad spend earlier this year. citing concerns over brand safety. Since then P&G has insisted that all digital programs be accredited by the Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG) to fight fraudulent metrics, a closely related issue tied to programmatic advertising.

The subject of fake news is one that occupies the minds and attention of governments, businesses and individuals, and is likely to continue as a matter of major concern in 2018. As Pundyk says in his concluding remarks:

Now more than ever, brand building is about establishing trust with customers and prospects. The SNCR study indicates that marketers – those with the most leverage – are acutely aware of the risk but remain divided about how to move things forward. And while the advertising models that built the world’s most valuable brands are exposed, the stakes are even higher for society. Advertising serves a public good when it supports credible content providers. When it fails – when brands forgo their social responsibility – brands, communities, and democratic institutions are all undermined.

More information from the SNCR study will be available in the coming weeks. If you’re a Conference Board member, look out for details soon. If you’re not and would like information, contact Alex Parkinson, SNCR’s Senior Researcher and Associate Director.

(Image at top via Pixabay. CC0)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Advertising, Business, Communication, Mainstream Media, Marketing, Public Relations, Reputation, Social Media, Society, Technology, Trends, Web Tagged With: fake news, SNCR, Trust

About Neville Hobson

Communication Leader, Social Media Leader, Consultant, Digital Change Agent, Speaker with a curiosity for tech and how people use it. Social Media Strategist at the Internet Society. Early adopter (and leaver) and experimenter with social media. Occasional test pilot of shiny new objects. Avid tea drinker. Follow @jangles on Twitter

Reader Interactions

Trackbacks

  1. Reining in tech: responsibility, regulation and education – The Small Data Forum Podcast says:
    January 9, 2018 at 07:55

    […] New Communications Research of The Conference Board (SNCR), which Neville helped conduct, revealed ambivalence as well as reluctance: ambivalence about what ought to change, and reluctance to alter their own business practices. […]

  2. SDF Podcast 15 - Reining in tech: responsibility, regulation and education • Neville Hobson says:
    January 9, 2018 at 09:03

    […] New Communications Research of The Conference Board (SNCR), which Neville helped conduct, revealed ambivalence as well as reluctance: ambivalence about what ought to change, and reluctance to alter their own business practices. […]

  3. Reining in Tech: Responsibility, Regulation and Education | Institute for Public Relations says:
    January 23, 2018 at 16:40

    […] New Communications Research of The Conference Board (SNCR), which Neville helped conduct, revealed ambivalence as well as reluctance: ambivalence about what ought to change, and reluctance to alter their own business practices. […]

Primary Sidebar

What To Expect

Neville Hobson
Twitter Facebook Google+ LinkedIn Instagram Flipboard
Perspectives at the intersection of business, communication and technology - communicator, blogger and podcaster Neville Hobson analyses and discusses trends, behaviours and practices in digital and social communication to help you understand what they mean for people and organizations. More...

Email Updates

Popular In The Past 30 Days

  • The Last Supper in 16 billion pixels close-up - 352 views
  • Generation Z vs Millennials: There’s quite a difference - 204 views
  • How to make your business card a smart card - 136 views
  • Good example of a social media press release from ING - 71 views
  • Finally a fix for the noisy fan on a Fujitsu Stylistic Q704 - 59 views
  • How to report Twitter hashtag spammers - 57 views
  • What next for Facebook? - 48 views
  • Notables in the 2008 Gartner hype cycle - 36 views
  • For Immediate Release 130: Facebook’s Moments of Truth - 31 views
  • The real symbiosis between PR and journalism - 28 views

Social Streams

Twitter, Instagram, Etc

Search This Site

Vuelio Top 10 Blog

Creative Commons license
Copyright © 2018 Neville Hobson. Some rights reserved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons International License.
Site version 10.1 · Powered by WordPress and Genesis Framework · Read Terms & Conditions of Use · RSS
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.