The New York Times and Wired have expressed concern about the ethical implications of these ads. According to Bob Steele from the Poynter Institute, these ads could “potentially quite corrosive of journalistic quality and credibility”.

The Daily Telegraph and Incisive Media are experimenting with the technology, and Sky Sports and the Daily Mirror are already using these ads.

“As well as the user experience being affected it is combining commercial and editorial too closely for people here,” said Tom Turcan, head of digital media development at the Guardian, which considered using the ads in 2004 and 2005 but decided against them.

“There is a suggestion that there might be certain circumstances, when you already know you are in a commercial context and definitely not editorial, that it could be useful.”

According to Incisive Media, the outlet recommends the sites and keywords to be targeted for a particular campaign, which ‘eliminates’ risks to editorial interference.

“That way there is no danger of compromising the editorial. We are not getting our editors to write stories with certain words in; we are writing stories and Vibrant is matching them with their campaigns,” said managing director of Incisive Media’s digital division John Barnes.

Barnes also defended the user’s experience, saying other types of ads are more intrusive.

Of course, the revenue-making potential is what’s most appealing in this technology. Says Barnes: “It’s a new revenue stream which is much more like a classified revenue stream. Classified should be accounting for 10 to 20 per cent of your revenue, so if it works this product will be accounting for 10 to 20 per cent of my total revenue.”

Source: Press Gazette