9 ms·
Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
- jawher 16y agoBecause it doesn't want their money, so reddit is now running them for free: http://www.reddit.com/r/ads/comments/d68xv/reddit_is_now_running_free_ads_in_support_of_prop/ http://www.reddit.com/r/ads/comments/d68xv/reddit_is_now_run...
- auxbuss 16y agoFor those who have no idea what Prop 19 is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19 Basically, a marijuana legalisation proposal.
- pstuart 16y agoMore of a "tax and regulate", which is a step towards legalization.
- philwelch 16y agoWell, it does legalize marijuana on the state level, and additionally taxes and regulates it. It may or may not be a de facto first step to federal deregulation.
- riffic 16y agomarijuana is an obsolete slang term popularized by fear mongering racists to push a certain economic agenda. the scientific term is cannabis; colloquially hemp. And we're asking for re-legalization, thanks. [edit: why is this being downvoted? do you need proof?? here's your god damned proof -] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_(etymology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_(etymology) http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html
- bhdz 16y agoYou're probably downvoted because of "fear mongering racists" & "economic agenda." Now you're left with the "scientific term" for marijuana which is fine but off-topic (which is Prop 19, Reddit & CN). Ytiquette is not written anywhere here, but I suppose it follows Reddiquette guidelines to some extend. PS: your link (http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html) looks like it comes from dubious, tinfoilhat-like source.
- riffic 16y agoThe Emperor Wears No Clothes (Jack Herer, come ON!) is a widely referenced and generally regarded as a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Herer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Herer
- starnix17 16y agoI wonder why Conde Nast even bought reddit in the first place. It's cool that they let them run the web site as an independent entity more or less, but it really seems like they don't like supporting them (see Reddit Gold).
- points 16y agoThey probably thought they were buying a broad general "What news will look like in the future" website. In fact they ended up with a liberal pro drug, pro gay, pro adblock, anti capitalism, anti consumerism, anti advertising, athiest website. As time has gone on Reddits userbase seems to have become narrower and narrower even though it's obviously grown massively. Maybe it's groupthink at work, or maybe it's just come to be known as a hangout for liberals being outraged by stuff.
- drivebyacct2 16y agoI can't believe that comments like this are upmodded but yet HN has the audacity to tout some air of supremacy while laughing at the notion of a "digg vs reddit" flame war. The community remains remarkably split on adblock use (especially on sites they like, etc). There are people that oppose plenty of drug use (calling pot a drug is disingenuous for shock factor of "calling out" reddit) and being antigay is yes, unpopular on a social voting news site, shocking.
- kmfrk 16y agoAny source on the split adblock opinion? Sounds interesting.
- points 16y agoThe more surprising thing IMHO is the air of superiority that Reddit users have over religion, and especially over people who watch Fox News etc. Now I'm not for one minute defending people who only watch Fox News, but there are people who only get their news from Reddit. So instead of a blinkered, biased, inaccurate kneejerkist feed of stories from Fox, they get a blinkered, biased, inaccurate kneejerkist feed of stories from Reddit.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago>This was a decision made at the highest levels of Conde Nast. Doesn't this put the lie to their "we're our own business and don't have anything to do with Conde Nast, that's why we need your charity" line?
- michael_dorfman 16y agoNope; it confirms that the Reddit guys and their Conde Nast overlords don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, and that Reddit is not given the freedom (or resources, apparently) to run itself as it sees fit.
- danilocampos 16y agoDisappointing. The downside to liquidity events, I suppose.
- pbhjpbhj 16y agoThat's kinda my point - if reddit can not be allowed the freedom then CN (or AP or the Newhouse Family) have control over reddit and not reddit themselves. The donations requested are thus donations to the billionaire Newhouse cause and not to an independently run reddit. That's just how it appears to me.
- bluelu 16y agoCN bought reddit so they can do whatever they want to do with reddit. Either you take the cash or you leave it.
- kleevr 16y agoTrue, but there's also the massive anarchistic user base. /r/all is/was yelling censorship top to bottom. Starting to look a lot like the Digg Revolt[1] circa '07 regarding the 09 F9 .. censorship. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy#DMCA_notices_and_Digg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy...
- famousactress 16y agoThe fact that they're running them for free is kinda interesting. Going from corporate censoring the ads, to reddit essentially giving the campaign a huge contribution. It'll be interesting to see what the fall-out from this is.
- ataggart 16y agoWhat's the over/under on the complaints about corporate giveaways to political campaigns? I'll take the under.
- ars 16y agoIf I were Conde Nast, the fallout would be firing them, and yes I'm aware this may kill reddit. You were bought. Reddit does not belong to you, and you don't get to decide what to do with it. If you can't handle that then you should never have sold, or in this case you should quit.
- ojbyrne 16y agoWell the higher-ups could actually have been honest when they said they just didn't want to benefit financially, and might have approved the free ads.
- CamperBob 16y agoThere might be some really severe legal consequences to running those free ads. I'm not familiar with campaign finance but it's possible that the law considers Reddit's action to be a "donation" with a large equivalent cash value.
- famousactress 16y agoI was thinking the exact same thing. At the very least I think there are disclosure and tax issues, and the fact that the 'donation' came from Conde Nast has pretty significant implications.
- 16y ago
- malbiniak 16y agoSince we're not allowed to benefit financially, reddit is now running the ads for free. Nice hack, reddit.
- points 16y agoIt's farcical. It's just circlejerking. The idea that advertising pro-prop19 to Reddit would have made any sense in the first place is just ridiculous given that they're all pretty much uniformly in favor of it. It's fun to watch them run around being outraged boycotting and generally wasting their own time though.
- dailyrorschach 16y agoActually it makes a lot of sense to advertise to this group to ensure they do actually vote. You can't take your public for granted.
- kevinpet 16y agoPreaching to the choir is a great way to solicit contributions.
- enjo 16y agoIt's an important way to maintain voter awareness and actually motivate them to vote when they get the chance. In politics, it's often more important to advertise directly to your base than anywhere else.
- jsz0 16y agoI'm not familiar with Conde Nast's publications. Do they traditionally avoid political issue ads? If so I don't see any good reason why Reddit would be an exception. It sounds like they want to avoid the issue entirely and won't run anti Prob 19 ads either. I don't think that's unreasonable. I also have to question the value of any pro Prob 19 group spending money to advertise on Reddit. They'd be better off targeting the mainstream voter.
- lreeves 16y agoThere's actually quite a few ads on Reddit that I've seen about "Avoiding the Obama Homesexual Agenda" (not to mention Scientology), so it seems more like Conde Nast is protecting their specific interests. Or at least, not allowing ads that oppose their views.
- smallblacksun 16y agoNo, they are avoiding ads that they think will cost them money.
- mrkurt 16y agoTo be fair, those are all served by Google, they're not direct sales (like the Prop 19 ones seemed to be). We (not reddit) spent lots of time blocking Scientology and other moronic adwords ads back when we were running adsense. They sprout up like weeds.
- tomjen3 16y agoCondo is a company that exist for one single reason - to make as much money as possible for their share holders. That is their legal requirment, so if they don't do that and leave money on the table they open the self up to liability from their share holders.
- tullius 16y agoThey are a private company owned by the Newhouse family. They can do what they want.
- cilantro 16y agoAfter all these years, it looks like the publishing industry is still threatened by marijuana.
- farmerbuzz 16y agoPerhaps its not that they're threatened by marijuana but disinclined to accept controversial and divisive advertising?
- wvenable 16y agoThey already accept controversial and divisive advertising. Here is an example: http://i.imgur.com/pRN0K.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pRN0K.jpg
- farmerbuzz 16y agoWow. Nevermind then!
- farmerbuzz 16y agoAlthough it looks like that is a Google ad, so maybe they didn't intend to accept it?
- scelerat 16y agoCould be they're not threatened by marijuana so much as their other advertisers. It's not difficult to imagine an account with much deeper pockets and an opposing agenda making it clear that if CN takes money from "pro-drug" advertisers, then they'll pull their own.
- cilantro 16y agoI was mostly pointing out the irony that Conde Nast is continuing the legacy of William Randolph Hearst. My assertion isn't completely implausible though.
- tzs 16y agoDoes running the ads for free count as a donation to the prop 19 campaign, and possibly trigger reporting obligations on the part of Conde Nast?
- ahi 16y agoI don't think so. http://www.sos.ca.gov/prd/campaign_info/forms_instructions/compend_camp_forms.htm http://www.sos.ca.gov/prd/campaign_info/forms_instructions/c... From what I can tell you only have to report expenditures greater than $1000. Maybe
- markkat 16y agoWell, this will have the opposite effect. It seems Conde Nast doesn't understand their product very well.
- ribsnchicken 16y agoYour basic Streisand effect.
- sliverstorm 16y ago"As a corporation, Conde Nast does not want to benefit financially from this particular issue" I think that's fair. I can't fault them for that.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- thought_alarm 16y agoGentlemen, if you disable you ad blockers and visit Reddit you will see that the Prop 19 advert is now visible. Ahh, green; the color of money.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- mahmud 16y agoThey're running the ads for free. "Since we're not allowed to benefit financially, reddit is now running the ads for free."
- huntero 16y agoAm I the only one who has no problem with a parent company not wanting pro-marijuana ads running on their sites? They legitimately own Reddit, it seems rather childish that Reddit is "rebelling" by running the ads for free.
- jrockway 16y agoNew media vs. old. Conde Nast can retaliate somehow, but then all the users just get mad and go to the competitors, and Reddit becomse a Distant Memory Of The Past.
- gbhn 16y agoWhy do you think they're rebelling? Isn't the most natural interpretation that the corporate statement ("we don't want to profit from this issue") is accurate, and that Conde Nast doesn't mind if Reddit runs the ads?
- huntero 16y agoI guess the question is: Would Reddit have offered to run the Prop 19 ads for free even if Conde Nast hadn't told them not to run the ads at all? I would say no, so it seems that the reason that the ads are running for free is because of the difference in opinion with the parent company. That's how I reasoned out "rebelling", although it's obviously a bit of hyperbole.
- DougBTX 16y agoBecause he thinks that corporate-speak is not meant to be taken literally, and he is probably right. The sentiment is "don't run these ads," which is what they are rebelling against.
- riffic 16y agoThese ads are purely political. They are not ads for a product for sale, as in the case of a tobacco or liquor ad.
- riffic 16y agoTitle isn't true, Conde Naste has no problem running Prop. 19 ads, as long as your viewpoints align with theirs. http://www.reddit.com/r/prop19/duplicates/cx665/no_on_19_ad_on_reddit/ http://www.reddit.com/r/prop19/duplicates/cx665/no_on_19_ad_...