5 ms·

Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform whatsoever) L

Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform whatsoever) Like, I might if the ad is relevant to the piece of content in question. For example if I am watching construction/woodworking/industrial videos on youtube I won't be surprised if I see ads relating to tools, but thats about it. I'm not gonna go ahead and buy this tool specifically because the ad is on a video I enjoyed, or associate another company with evil just because it's on a bad video. Another guess would be it's simply the subconcious thing of seeing an ad to something potentially bad?

mozumder 8y ago
> Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform whatsoever) Yes. This is how branding works. It's why companies pay for a famous celebrity to represent their brand, instead of a random person, because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity. The major brands have very specific rules on what their ads can appear next to.. they actually write down things like "our ad can't appear next to blood/violence" etc.. Doesn't matter if it's user-generated or not. As long as that image exists next to the brand, the brand is fucked. I mean, what would you think of Chanel if they ever placed their beautiful ad next to a picture of a dead body?
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  >because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity. I don't think people are buying because of perceived quality. They buy because celebrities are trend setters. A celebrity using something makes it a kind of status symbol. But the question remains, does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Even when people know the placement is algorithmic/automatic? I don't think speculation will answer this question.
  - mozumder 8y ago
    When a celebrity buys something, it is perceived as higher quality, since a low quality product would damage that celebrity's brand. Celebrities also have filters for bad branding, too. This isn't new a new field of research. This is literally and exactly how branding works. If you feel a century of advertising science is unproven, feel free to show your own research that goes against the experiences of millions of people in the field.
    - hackinthebochs 8y ago
      Would be interesting to see those studies. But at the same time, consumers are much more sophisticated these days and so those studies would need to be repeated with a modern audience. For example, no one believes LeBron James wears Nike because they're the best, they know he's being paid $1 billion to wear them.
      - drewbuschhorn 8y ago
        That's just factually incorrect. Celebrity endorsements are actually more powerful now than in the past, I'm assuming because youtube style celebrity makes it seem more like the persona the celebrity presents is an actual person, or just more exposure though those explanations are just my handwave. https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2015/nielsen-global-trust-in-advertising-report-september-2015.pdf https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/... Someone's random article from a non-ranked journal, but looks like it's got some decent reference papers http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%20Ching%20Tsai.pdf http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%20Ching%20Tsai.pdf
        hackinthebochs 8y ago
        I agree that celebrity endorsements are effective. The question is why are they effective. I disagreed that celebrity endorsements influence perceived quality. This is different than perceived value which includes many factors, one of which is perceived quality. A google search provides very little studies that address endorser on perceived quality of the product. The couple I found provided mixed results, with questionable applicability to western audiences (E.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814907 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814907). Those who are asserting that its obviously true that endorser influences perceived quality apparently do not have the literature behind them.
imgabe 8y ago
Pairing up advertising to content is pretty standard since forever. Even soap operas got their name because they were sponsored by dish soap makers, who marketed to housewives, i.e. the people who were home during the day to watch soap operas.
jrockway 8y ago
> Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? I doubt it, but it's complicated. Advertisers think that people do. People know that advertisers think that they do, so they use that to their advantage. If they disagree with something, they know there's nothing they can do... but... they can feign outrage ("I'm boycotting Crest toothpaste because they support X") and since advertisers think they're being genuine, they act. Thus, even though they know the advertisement has nothing to do with the social networking user they dislike, they can have action taken against the person they don't like. No advertiser is bold enough to say "I think you're lying," and thus, the problem persists. Advertisers get to be the ad-hoc censors of the platforms they advertise on.
boomlinde 8y ago
Maybe you won't buy a tool just because you saw an ad, but later when you need to buy a tool like it, the ad you saw might have established the brand being asvertised as an option. When it pops up in your head, having seen it in a negative context might affect your decision regardless of the relationship between the advertiser and its context. I'd guess people would buy more stuff in general if for example TV ads were all aired in the middle of upbeat shows.

mozumder 8y ago

> Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform whatsoever) Yes. This is how branding works. It's why companies pay for a famous celebrity to represent their brand, instead of a random person, because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity. The major brands have very specific rules on what their ads can appear next to.. they actually write down things like "our ad can't appear next to blood/violence" etc.. Doesn't matter if it's user-generated or not. As long as that image exists next to the brand, the brand is fucked. I mean, what would you think of Chanel if they ever placed their beautiful ad next to a picture of a dead body?

hackinthebochs 8y ago
>because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity. I don't think people are buying because of perceived quality. They buy because celebrities are trend setters. A celebrity using something makes it a kind of status symbol. But the question remains, does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Even when people know the placement is algorithmic/automatic? I don't think speculation will answer this question.
- mozumder 8y ago
  When a celebrity buys something, it is perceived as higher quality, since a low quality product would damage that celebrity's brand. Celebrities also have filters for bad branding, too. This isn't new a new field of research. This is literally and exactly how branding works. If you feel a century of advertising science is unproven, feel free to show your own research that goes against the experiences of millions of people in the field.
  - hackinthebochs 8y ago
    Would be interesting to see those studies. But at the same time, consumers are much more sophisticated these days and so those studies would need to be repeated with a modern audience. For example, no one believes LeBron James wears Nike because they're the best, they know he's being paid $1 billion to wear them.
    - drewbuschhorn 8y ago
      That's just factually incorrect. Celebrity endorsements are actually more powerful now than in the past, I'm assuming because youtube style celebrity makes it seem more like the persona the celebrity presents is an actual person, or just more exposure though those explanations are just my handwave. https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/reports/2015/nielsen-global-trust-in-advertising-report-september-2015.pdf https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/apac/docs/... Someone's random article from a non-ranked journal, but looks like it's got some decent reference papers http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%20Ching%20Tsai.pdf http://www.jimsjournal.org/13%20Yi%20Ching%20Tsai.pdf
      - hackinthebochs 8y ago
        I agree that celebrity endorsements are effective. The question is why are they effective. I disagreed that celebrity endorsements influence perceived quality. This is different than perceived value which includes many factors, one of which is perceived quality. A google search provides very little studies that address endorser on perceived quality of the product. The couple I found provided mixed results, with questionable applicability to western audiences (E.g. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814907 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814907). Those who are asserting that its obviously true that endorser influences perceived quality apparently do not have the literature behind them.

imgabe 8y ago

Pairing up advertising to content is pretty standard since forever. Even soap operas got their name because they were sponsored by dish soap makers, who marketed to housewives, i.e. the people who were home during the day to watch soap operas.

jrockway 8y ago

> Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? I doubt it, but it's complicated. Advertisers think that people do. People know that advertisers think that they do, so they use that to their advantage. If they disagree with something, they know there's nothing they can do... but... they can feign outrage ("I'm boycotting Crest toothpaste because they support X") and since advertisers think they're being genuine, they act. Thus, even though they know the advertisement has nothing to do with the social networking user they dislike, they can have action taken against the person they don't like. No advertiser is bold enough to say "I think you're lying," and thus, the problem persists. Advertisers get to be the ad-hoc censors of the platforms they advertise on.

boomlinde 8y ago

Maybe you won't buy a tool just because you saw an ad, but later when you need to buy a tool like it, the ad you saw might have established the brand being asvertised as an option. When it pops up in your head, having seen it in a negative context might affect your decision regardless of the relationship between the advertiser and its context. I'd guess people would buy more stuff in general if for example TV ads were all aired in the middle of upbeat shows.