Earned, sponsored, contributor or advertorial? How to tell what kind of coverage you’re paying for
“Guaranteed feature in a national title” can mean four very different things. Some are journalism, some are advertising, and some sit in a grey area that can cause problems with the Advertising Standards Authority, with Google, or with your own reputation. This guide explains the differences so you know exactly what you are buying.
We’ll start with the short version, because it’s the part most people get wrong. Nobody can guarantee earned editorial coverage: not us, not any other agency. A journalist or editor decides what runs, and that decision is the whole point. What can be guaranteed is a paid, clearly labelled placement. Both are legitimate. The problem starts when one is sold as the other.
The four types, defined
1. Earned editorial
A journalist or editor chooses to cover your story, quote your spokesperson or use your data because it is useful to their readers. You don’t pay the publication, and you don’t approve the copy. You may never see the piece before it goes live, and it may include criticism or a competitor’s view. Earned coverage is what most media relations work aims for: you pay an agency for its time, research and pitching, not for the outcome.
2. Sponsored content (publisher-controlled)
A brand pays a publisher to fund a piece or a series, but the publisher keeps editorial control. Think of a sponsored report written by the publisher’s own team, with your name attached as the funder. The ASA’s guidance on sponsorship notes that where a marketer pays but has no editorial control, this kind of content has been treated as outside the CAP Code. The same page warns that it can still fall under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which the Competition and Markets Authority and Trading Standards enforce. So it still needs to be disclosed honestly.
3. Advertorial (advertisement feature)
You pay, and you control the words. The CAP Code defines an advertorial as content “controlled by the marketer, not the publisher, that is disseminated in exchange for a payment or other reciprocal arrangement”, according to the ASA’s remit guidance on advertisement features. Both conditions have to be met: payment (or something in kind) and control. The same page lists what counts as control, including prior approval before publication, requiring specific phrases or messages, and the right to ask for changes after publication.
4. Contributor and guest content
This is the slipperiest category. A “contributor” article might be a genuine guest column commissioned by an editor, which is editorial. It might also be a piece placed by a third party who has been paid to get your brand mentioned. If money or a reciprocal arrangement changes hands and the brand shapes the content, it meets the ASA’s definition of an advertorial, whatever it’s called on the invoice. If you’re paying someone to “get you into” a contributor slot, assume it’s advertising and label it that way.
Side-by-side comparison
| Type | Who pays the publisher? | Who controls the words? | Can it be guaranteed? | Expected label | Link treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earned editorial | Nobody | Journalist / editor | No | None needed | Publisher’s choice |
| Sponsored (publisher-controlled) | Brand | Publisher | Yes (the placement, not the tone) | Clear disclosure of the funding | rel="sponsored" or nofollow |
| Advertorial / ad feature | Brand | Brand | Yes | “Advertisement feature”, “Ad” or similar, upfront | rel="sponsored" or nofollow |
| Paid contributor placement | Brand (often via a middleman) | Usually brand | Often sold as “yes” | Treat as advertising | rel="sponsored" or nofollow |
| Genuine guest column | Nobody | Author, subject to editor | No | Author byline | Publisher’s choice |
How each should be labelled in the UK
The starting point is rule 2.1 of the CAP Code, section 2: “Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such.” Rule 2.4 then applies it to advertorials: “Marketers and publishers must make clear that advertorials are marketing communications; for example, by heading them ‘advertisement feature’.”
The ASA’s guidance on recognising advertisement features goes further on wording. It says labels such as “Ad”, “Advert”, “Advertising”, “Advertisement” and “Ad Feature” are very likely to be acceptable if they’re displayed upfront in a prominent, easily noticeable place. It also says that because “sponsored” is open to varied interpretation, the ASA would “generally advise against” using that word alone to label advertising content.
Two different “sponsored”s. Google asks for a rel="sponsored" attribute in the link code, which readers don’t see. The ASA is talking about the visible label readers do see. An advertorial can, and usually should, have both: a visible “Advertisement feature” label and rel="sponsored" on its links.
What about the press regulator? IPSO handles complaints about editorial material in member newspapers and magazines, including accuracy under Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code. Advertising content is a matter for the ASA’s codes. In practice, if a piece is presented as journalism but was paid for and approved by a brand, you risk a complaint about mislabelling as well as the reputational damage when readers find out.
Link treatment and Google
Google’s spam policies define link spam as creating links “primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings”. The examples are directly relevant here:
- “Exchanging money for links, or posts that contain links”
- “Advertorials or native advertising where payment is received for articles that include links that pass ranking credit”
- “Links with optimized anchor text in articles, guest posts, or press releases distributed on other sites”
The same policy says such links are acceptable “as long as they are qualified with a rel="nofollow" or rel="sponsored" attribute value”. Google’s page on qualifying outbound links asks sites to mark “links that are advertisements or paid placements” with sponsored, and adds that nofollow “is still an acceptable way to flag them, though sponsored is preferred.”
The spam policies also cover site reputation abuse: third-party content published on a host site “mainly because of that host’s already-established ranking signals”. If someone is selling placements on a well-known site because it ranks well, rather than because its readers want the content, that’s a risk for both the host and, potentially, your brand’s association with it.
The practical takeaway: a paid placement should help you with readers through awareness, credibility by association and referral traffic. Don’t buy it on the promise of passing search ranking credit. If a seller says its links are “dofollow” as a selling point, that’s a warning sign.
Questions to ask any agency before you pay (including us)
- Is this earned or paid? Ask for it in writing, item by item. “A mix” isn’t an answer.
- Who controls the final copy? If you can approve it, it’s almost certainly an advertorial and must be labelled as one.
- What label will readers see, and where? Ask for an example of a live piece on the same site.
- What
relattribute will the links carry? The answer should besponsoredornofollowfor anything paid. - Who is being paid? The publisher, a freelance contributor, or a reseller? Payment to an individual contributor that the editor doesn’t know about is a serious red flag.
- What happens if the piece is removed or relabelled? Publishers sometimes audit and take down undisclosed paid content.
- For earned work, what are you actually paying for? Hours, research, angles and pitching are fair things to charge for. A “guaranteed” result isn’t.
If you’re comparing publications, our publications directory sets out what each title offers. Our PR glossary also defines the terms that tend to get blurred in sales conversations.
Red flags
- “Guaranteed editorial” or “guaranteed feature as a journalist’s piece”. Earned coverage can’t be guaranteed. If it is guaranteed, it’s paid, and must be labelled.
- A price list of titles with “no sponsored tag” or “looks like editorial” as a feature.
- “Dofollow links” or “keyword anchor text of your choice” offered as part of the package.
- Reluctance to name who is being paid, or a request to keep the arrangement off the record from the publication’s editors.
- Bulk “as seen in” packages across dozens of sites that you’ve never heard of, all published on the same day.
- Pressure to supply copy in the third person, written as if by a staff journalist, for a paid slot.
Both have a place
None of this means paid placements are bad. A clearly labelled advertisement feature in a trade title your buyers read can be good value: you control the message, the timing is certain, and readers know what they’re reading. Earned coverage carries different weight because an independent editor chose it, but it’s slower and never certain.
A sensible plan often uses both. Earned media relations and thought leadership build credibility over time. Labelled paid placements fill gaps where timing or message control matters. The rule is the same either way: tell readers the truth about what they’re looking at, and mark paid links properly.
If you’d like a straight answer on whether a package you’ve been offered is earned or paid, send us the details. We’ll tell you what it looks like from where we sit, even if the answer is that you don’t need us.
Sources
- ASA, Recognising ads: Advertisement features
- ASA, Remit: Advertisement features
- ASA, Remit: Sponsorship
- CAP, CAP Code section 2: Recognition of marketing communications
- IPSO, Making a complaint
- Google Search Central, Spam policies for Google web search
- Google Search Central, Qualify your outbound links to Google