Confrontations et convergences éthiques entre marketing et information autour de la publicité native
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La perméabilité de la division information/publicité dans les salles de rédaction fait récursivement l’objet de débats au sein de l’industrie journalistique. Mus par des logiques différentes, univers marketing et journalistique sont supposés se prémunir de toute influence mutuelle. L’arrivée des plateformes socio numériques, l’éclatement du modèle économique des médias d’information et l’irritation face à l’intrusion publicitaire et les stratégies de blocage encouragent de nouveaux chevauchements, dont la publicité native (PN). Les différentes justifications ou critiques de cette technique controversée constituent une entrée pour analyser le rapport à l’éthique des deux professions, journalisme et marketing. Cette communication propose d’interroger ce phénomène par une double analyse. D’abord en repérant dans le discours des professionnels du marketing et de l’information les différentes rationalités entourant l’utilisation, ou non, de la PN. Ces rationalités sont ensuite adossées aux codes, chartes et guides déontiques. Au final, nous arguons que les guides actuels sont insuffisants pour encadrer le bouleversement professionnel qu’engendre la PN, entre autres sous la force de tensions séculaires, mais fortement bousculées par des rationalités convergentes. Ce paradoxe semble se solder par l’arrivée d’un nouveau type de professionnel, le producteur de contenu. Nous ouvrons quelques pistes pour explorer plus avant cette transformation professionnelle. Mots Clés : publicité native, journalisme, analyse de discours, éthique The porousness of the information/advertising division in newsrooms is a recursive topic of debate in the journalism industry. With their distinct logics, the worlds of marketing and journalism are supposed to guard against any mutual influence, as enshrined in ethical codes and charters. But the rise of social media platforms, the fragmentation of the economic model of the news media, the irritation of advertising intrusion, and the ad blocking software are encouraging new overlaps, one being native advertising (NA). The various justifications or criticisms of this controversial technique constitute for us the entry point to analyze the ethics of both journalism and marketing in regard of NA. First, we identify, within the discourse of both marketing and information professionals, the different rationalities surrounding the use or non use of NA. These rationalities are then compared to codes, charters and deontic guides in use. In the end, we argue that the current guides are insufficient to frame the professional upheaval that NA generates, under the force of deep-rooted tensions, now strongly shaken by convergent economical rationalities. This paradox seems to result in the arrival of a new type of professional, the content producer. We open up some avenues to explore this professional transformation further. Keywords: Ethics, deontology, native advertising, marketing, journalism
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".