Native Ads or Advertorials?

Digiday reporting:
There’s a growing debate on the concept of native advertising. The underlying question: Is native advertising a new tool for publishers, or is it just putting lipstick on the advertorial pig?
One view is that native ads are a disruptive advertising unit publishers are using, in part to eliminate the much-maligned banner. Publishers are working with brands to develop interactive and engaging content that sits on a publisher site, looks and feels like an article from that publisher, and can be shared like any other type of content. It often comes in the form of pictures, but can also be video or a straight-up article. Visit BuzzFeed or Gawker or The Huffington Post or Forbes or The Atlantic and you’ll see these ads in the wild. The conceit is rather simple: use the Web to present compelling content that allows brands to deliver a message without it looking like an ad.
The naysayers, however, see it differently. All Things D’s Peter Kafka tweeted, “Native ads” = “fancy name for advertorials magazines and newspapers have always run.” The view is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well then, it must be a duck. Advertorials on the Web aren’t new, as AdWeek (and former Digiday editor) Mike Shields reminded us in a tweet, “we’ve had ‘sponsored sections’ since 90s. Ditching banners is what’s revolutionary”
The difference between an advertorial and a native ad lies in the content. Publishers are building out creative services teams (The Atlantic has a staff of 15; Buzzfeed has nearly 20) to help brands create content that fits the voice of the outlet, whereas advertorials don’t necessarily match up. Think of any drug advertorial you may see in Sports Illustrated or Golf Digest.
What’s tripping people up is there has yet to be an operational definition for native ads.
http://www.digiday.com/publishers/native-ads-or-advertorials/