What looks and sounds like a news story, but actually isn’t? A native ad—an advertisement camouflaged as news. The ads have headlines, an author, quotes, and everything else you would expect to see in a regular news article. But they are not news—and can often be misleading.

In a new study, Boston University researchers found an energy company’s native ad was very effective at swaying public opinion on climate change—and, they argue, not necessarily for the better. But they also discovered several effective methods to lessen the impact of these types of ads—which have been used to promote everything from insurance to Scientology. The results were published in the Nature journal Climate Action.

The study focused on an ExxonMobil native ad first published on the New York Times website in 2018. The ad, titled “The Future of Energy,” was about ExxonMobil’s green energy initiatives, including a project to mass produce algae for biofuel production. Created by T Brand Studio, the New York Times’ in-house design studio, this ad was part of a larger campaign for which ExxonMobil paid the Times $5 million.

“Many major news organizations now offer corporations the opportunity to pay for articles that mimic in tone and format the publication’s regular reported content,” says Benjamin Sovacool, director of the BU Institute for Global Sustainability and a study coauthor. “Fossil fuel companies are spending tens of millions of dollars to shape public perceptions of the climate crisis, and research has shown that native ads are really effective at swaying readers’ opinions.”

According to the BU study, the article-style ad, while containing some factual information, also made several contested or potentially misleading claims. For example, the ad said ExxonMobil would have the ability to produce 10,000 barrels of algae-based biofuel a day by 2025. This sounds like a lot, but if it was fully implemented, the study said, it would have only amounted to 0.2 percent of the corporation’s refinery capacity. ExxonMobil announced in 2023 that it was ending its investment into algae as an energy source. The ad also made no mention of ExxonMobil’s plans for future fossil fuel production.

“We often think that it’s only or primarily fossil fuel companies behind misinformation. In our case, we showed, surprisingly, that it was the New York Times and other major newspapers that rely on native advertising,” says Sovacool, also a BU College of Arts & Sciences professor of Earth and environment. 

This specific ad was chosen because, in 2019, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey—who is now governor—sued ExxonMobil for deceptive advertising, a case that is still ongoing. The New York Times native ad was an exhibit in that lawsuit, which is where the study’s lead author Michelle Amazeen, a BU College of Communication associate professor of mass communication, first saw it.

“When ​I ​became ​aware ​of the ​lawsuit, it ​really ​made ​me understand that you can use this strategy of ​native ​advertising ​to ​sell ​a ​pair ​of ​shoes or to sell a ​travel ​destination, but you ​can ​also ​use ​it ​to ​influence ​people’s ​perceptions ​about ​what’s ​happening ​to ​the ​climate,” says Amazeen, who also directs BU’s Communication Research Center. “And ​so ​that ​really ​piqued ​my ​interest ​and ​I ​decided ​with ​my ​team that ​we ​wanted ​to ​focus ​on ​this ​particular ​ad.”

To collect the data for the study, Amazeen and her fellow researchers designed an online survey that asked adults from the United States different questions about the ad. Some of the 1,045 participants saw a message before seeing the ad—called an inoculation message—others saw a paid advertisement disclosure on the ad itself, and others saw both. Additionally, there was a control group that didn’t see the message or the ad.

The inoculation message was a real Facebook post from the United Nations secretary-general that explained how energy companies are using native ads. The researchers predicted this would cause participants to be more aware of native ads, which would reduce their effect, similar to how a vaccine works. 

“The ​purpose ​of ​disclosures is ​to ​help ​people ​recognize ​that ​there’s ​paid ​content,” Amazeen says. “​But it ​doesn’t ​necessarily help ​them become ​more ​resilient. Whereas ​the ​whole ​point ​of ​the ​inoculation ​messages ​is ​like [a vaccine]. It’s ​supposed ​to ​protect us ​from ​psychological ​influence.”

The survey then asked participants whether or not they agreed with several claims made in the ad, such as “companies like ExxonMobil are investing heavily in becoming more environmentally friendly” and “ExxonMobil is investing heavily in alternative fuels like algae and farm waste.” Those who saw the inoculation message were more likely to disagree with the claims, compared to those who did not see the inoculation message. But those in the control group—who never saw the message or ad at all—were the most likely group to disagree with the claims, since they were unaware of ExxonMobil’s algae project. This means that the less native ads are used, the less influence they can have over consumers. 

To Amazeen, this indicates that native advertisements should be taken more seriously. 

“This [study] tells us two things,” she says. “First of all, for the ​majority ​of ​people, ​even ​with ​the ​disclosures, ​it ​was ​hard ​for ​them ​to ​distinguish native ads ​from ​genuine ​news. Secondly, ​it tells us that the ​claims ​in ​the ​ad ​are ​influential. ​It ​changed ​people’s ​perceptions about ​climate-related ​issues, ​even ​after ​only ​one ​exposure. But ​we ​found ​that forewarning ​people ​using ​these ​inoculation ​messages ​helps ​make ​people ​more ​resilient ​to ​misinformation.”

Arunima Krishna, a COM associate professor of mass communication and study coauthor, says inoculation should be used more, given how effective it can be.

“What ​would ​be ​really ​powerful ​would ​be ​for ​concerted ​efforts ​from ​media ​platforms—whether ​it’s ​digital ​media, ​social ​media, ​news ​media, ​or legacy ​news ​media​—to ​help provide ​inoculations as ​policy,” she says. “If ​there ​is ​a ​desire ​to ​do ​something ​about disinformation ​efforts, I ​think ​inoculation ​has ​a ​lot ​of ​promise.”

Krishna adds this kind of research is important because “climate ​change ​is ​here, ​it’s ​happening, ​and we ​need ​robust ​industry-wide ​action to ​be ​able ​to ​mitigate ​it.” 

She argues that native ads can be an attempt at ​greenwashing ​and “an ​effort ​to ​stifle ​any ​regulatory ​impetus ​to ​climate ​action. It’s ​important ​that ​we ​mitigate ​them ​in ​order ​to ​increase ​public ​support ​for ​climate ​action.”

Amazeen hopes the study will have a positive impact in the fight against misinformation from the fossil fuel industry, especially when it comes to the legal battles.

“I ​think ​that ​these ​results could ​be ​useful in ​the ​many ​lawsuits that ​are happening ​around ​the ​country ​and ​around ​the ​globe, where ​state ​attorneys ​general, municipalities, cities, ​and ​towns ​are ​suing ​the ​fossil ​fuel ​industry for ​deceiving ​the ​public ​about ​the ​harms ​of ​their ​products in ​their ​marketing,” she says. “And this [study] ​is ​hard ​evidence, this is causal evidence, ​that ​shows exposure ​affects ​belief.”

This study was funded by BU’s Institute for Global Sustainability and Rafik B. Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science & Engineering.