Native Advertising—The Formats and Types of Content Most Demanded by Brands in the Spanish Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer's Recommendations and Suggestions

The paper titled Native advertising. The formats and types of content most in demand in the Spanish media presents a topic of interest about brand advertising production of content in the media. It addresses the changes linked to the implosion of new formats that coexist with traditional advertising.

In general, the text offers a correct structure in accordance with empirical research, has relevant references from the scientific literature, provides a qualitative analysis methodology and results in accordance with the objectives.

In order for the authors to improve some deficiencies, the following changes are required:

 1. In the title the autors would add “most demanded by brands in the Spanish media”. 

2. In the abstract, it is essential to define the method and the sample and an advance about the results and conclusions. 

3. In the Keywords  "brand" should be included. 

4. In the Methods and Materials section, we consider that it is necessary to state the research questions, in accordance with the established objectives. In addition, it is recommended to incorporate other authors who are experts in content analysis and qualitative research.

5. The authors carry out a detailed development of the results of the interviews carried out and provide tables of their own preparation on the type of formats and content most in demand. Examples of advertisements and advertising campaigns are used in the Spanish media, which reflect the strategies used by the brands. However, the discussion of results cannot remain solely in the authors' own comment, but must be related to references from other previous studies. 

6. Conclusions are required. They do not appear in the study and are a prerequisite. In the conclusions section, it is possible to go beyond the results presented in the previous section. In this sense, it is suggested:

1) to better reformulate the introductory paragraphs and focus on the findings or their relationship with the previous bibliography.

2) to consider the limitations of the study.

3) to refer future research related to the topic.

7. Bibliographic References:Incorporate studies on qualitative content analysis such as:  

-Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. Sage.

-Flick, U. (2004). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Morata.

- Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2016). Qualitative research. Sage.

8.- Formal Requirements:It is recommended to explain some technicalities such as "scrollytelling" or "gamification" in the context of research. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• Lin. 153-154. The authors mention the expression "experimental results", but the design of this research is not experimental. They should modify this way of referring to their research by a more appropriate term so as not to confuse the readers of the article.
• Lin. 163: I don't understand what horizontal analysis means. It must be clarified.
• Lin. 173-177: The investigation, especially if they clarify some points indicated below, surely has the qualities of Validity and Reliability, but not for the reasons indicated. An investigation, to refer to the first point, has Validity based on the design of data collection and the guarantees that must accompany that data collection, and Reliability is related to the analysis instruments used (interviews, eg) and consistency From the results. It is necessary to rework their explanations much better to justify that their research meets these two qualities.
• The concept of taxonomy: it is mentioned in some sections, but it is not clear if the taxobomy is table 1. This point should be clarified.
• In terms of validity and reliability, an essential point is to provide metadata about the interviews. The list of questions should be presented, among other things, and relate each question to the objective pursued in each one of them. They should explain how the interviews were analyzed and how the synthesis presented in the article was reached.
• It would also be advisable to upload the interview responses to a data repository and indicate the link in the article for interested readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no new comments in sight of the new version