IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/repececlstabus3395.html

Sponsorship Disclosure and Consumer Deception: Experimental Evidence from Native Advertising in Mobile Search

Author

Listed:
  • Sahni, Navdeep S.

    (Stanford University)

  • Nair, Harikesh S.

    (Stanford University)

Abstract

Recent advances in advertising technology have lead to the development of "native advertising", which is a format of advertising that mimics the other non-sponsored content on the medium. While advertisers have rapidly embraced the format on a variety of digital media, regulators have expressed serious concerns about whether this format materially deceives consumers when the advertising disclosure is incomplete or inappropriate. This has reignited a longstanding debate about the distinction between advertising and content, and how it affects consumers. This paper contributes to this debate by providing empirical evidence from randomized experiments conducted on native advertising at a mobile restaurant-search platform. We experimentally vary the format of paid-search advertising, the extent to which ads are disclosed to over 200,000 users, and track their anonymized browsing behavior including clicks and conversions. Our research design uses comparisons of revealed preferences under experimentally manipulated treatment and control conditions to assess the potential for consumer confusion and deception. A design based on revealed preference is important to speaking to the "material" standard of regulators, and to assessing "confusion" while avoiding direct questioning of consumers. We find that native advertising benefits advertisers, and detect no evidence of deception under typically used formats of disclosure currently used in the paid-search marketplace. Further investigation shows that the incremental conversions due to advertising are not driven by users clicking on the native ads. Rather, the benefits from advertising are driven by users seeing the ads and later clicking on the advertiser's "organic" listings. Thus, we find little support of typical native advertising "tricking" users and driving them to advertisers. Users seem to view ads and deliberately evaluate the advertisers. Overall, our results imply the incentives of the platform, advertisers and regulators with respect to disclosure are aligned: consumers value the clear disclosure regulators demand, and it benefits advertisers and improves monetization for the platform.

Suggested Citation

  • Sahni, Navdeep S. & Nair, Harikesh S., 2017. "Sponsorship Disclosure and Consumer Deception: Experimental Evidence from Native Advertising in Mobile Search," Research Papers repec:ecl:stabus:3395, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:repec:ecl:stabus:3395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fan, Wenfang & Shao, Bingjia & Zhang, Yong, 2025. "The more congruent, the better? The role of recommendation content congruence on consumers' click-through intention in in-feed advertising," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Alexander C. LaBrecque & Clay M. Voorhees & Farnoosh Khodakarami & Paul W. Fombelle, 2024. "Native advertising effectiveness: The role of congruence and consumer annoyance on clicks, bounces, and visits," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 1692-1712, November.
    3. Cao, Zike & Belo, Rodrigo, 2023. "Effects of Explicit Sponsorship Disclosure on User Engagement in Social Media Influencer Marketing," SocArXiv b8tsg, Center for Open Science.
    4. Prabirendra Chatterjee & Bo Zhou, 2021. "Sponsored Content Advertising in a Two-Sided Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7560-7574, December.
    5. repec:osf:socarx:b8tsg_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Brett R. Gordon & Robert Moakler & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2023. "Predictive Incrementality by Experimentation (PIE) for Ad Measurement," Papers 2304.06828, arXiv.org.
    7. Hsing Kenneth Cheng & D. Daniel Sokol & Xinyu Zang, 2024. "The rise of empirical online platform research in the new millennium," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 416-451, March.
    8. Jessica Fong, 2024. "Effects of Market Size and Competition in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from Online Dating," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(5), pages 971-985, September.
    9. Zimand-Sheiner, Dorit & Ryan, Tanya & Kip, Sema Misci & Lahav, Tamar, 2020. "Native advertising credibility perceptions and ethical attitudes: An exploratory study among adolescents in the United States, Turkey and Israel," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 608-619.
    10. Adrian Waltenrath, 2024. "Consumers’ ambiguous perceptions of advertising disclosures in influencer marketing: Disentangling the effects on current and future social media engagement," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 34(1), pages 1-24, December.
    11. Yue Wu & Esther Gal-Or & Tansev Geylani, 2022. "Regulating Native Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8045-8061, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:repec:ecl:stabus:3395. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.