We looked at 58 Fractl content marketing campaigns and 38 BuzzFeed native advertising campaigns to see how they stack up. Here's what we found.

2. In layman’s terms …
For content marketing, a really interesting
campaign is created and featured on
many different publishers’ sites for all to
see and share. Marketers create the
content for a fee and network with writers
and editors to include it in their stories.
For native advertising, a company pays a
media outlet (like BuzzFeed) to create a
campaign/story that looks like it’s part
of their editorial content.

3. We looked at 58 Fractl content
marketing campaigns and 38 BuzzFeed
native advertising campaigns to see
how they stack up.

5. Why are the content marketing
numbers so much higher?

6. The biggest difference between the two
marketing types:
On average, 90 publishers feature Fractl’s
content marketing campaigns, while the
nature of native advertising is only
one publisher per campaign.

7. Why fewer social shares for native
advertising?
BuzzFeed boasts monthly traffic
numbers in the multi-millions, but this
doesn’t guarantee social engagement.

8. When a campaign
is published on
dozens or
hundreds of sites,
it’s exposed to
many audiences
who can participate
in the viral loop.

9. With content marketing, you get a diverse
portfolio of links, which leads to increased
organic rankings.
Google doesn’t allow “sponsored links” (aka
native advertising) to pass value – meaning
there is no effect on organic rankings.

12. Not quite …
FRACTL CHARGES AN AVERAGE OF $10,000
PER CONTENT MARKETING CAMPAIGN
(INCLUDING MEDIA OUTREACH).
*Analysis of about 600 digital publishers
The average cost of launching a native
advertising program with a top-tier news
publisher is $54,014.29.*

13. Has the cost of native
advertising been inflated as a
means of recovering revenue,
or is it truly worth the tens of
thousands of dollars that top-tier
publishers are charging?

15. We have MUCH more on this debate.
Check out our report on: