5 ms·

Is there a reason why advertisers don't like ads next to adult content? Is there an actual study that shows ads in this form are less valuable?

Hemospectrum 8y ago
There's data on fraud and chargeback rates for adult-content-related credit card payments. They're much higher than for other goods and services. Major payment processors have blanket bans on such transactions, and will often refuse to do business with companies that don't have such bans. And you can't buy ads if you can't pay for them.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Which is why we need more competition in the payment processor space. Alternatives to Visa and MasterCard are a must.
dgzl 8y ago
It's not hard to see how a business might not want their paid advertisement sitting next to pornography hosted on the platform they're paying.
p49k 8y ago
I think they are acting on a reasonable fear that the reputation of the brand could be tarnished by their placing of ads on the page, which could be seen as a tacit endorsement of the content. Let’s not forget that this is not about whether to spend money or not - it’s about where to spend money. Advertisers have countless options for where and how to advertise, so it makes sense to shift money to more boring, safe platforms where the ROI is almost identical anyway.
- Joe-Z 8y ago
  That‘s so absurd though. It went from „hey let‘s put a banner in this popular place, so people will know us“ to „let‘s police this place so people will only associate us with nice things“ This whole ad-based internet needs to die.
  - hombre_fatal 8y ago
    I just hope it coincides with a cultural shift of people realizing they need to pay for things and that ads only made everything seem free.
    - tomc1985 8y ago
      Of people who stole a culture of freedom and openness and replaced it with... this
    - Kaiyou 8y ago
      The lack of a convenient way of anonymously paying is probably the root cause of that. There's cash, which is a pretty convenient way of anonymously paying. There's no such convenient way to pay for stuff on the Internet. Emphasis on convenient.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    It's not absurd, it's really the opposite - it's common sense. Ads are an important means for companies to get the word out for stuff you might want and they're in more places than the internet. The industry suffers from inefficiencies, surely, but it's still net beneficial. Someday we might have fewer ads, and better ads that we really want to see. If you ever get into a position where you have a company, and you run ads, and you see how it affects your business, you might have a different view. For example, I'm helping with a small new business making a very cool niche product - they'd be dead without FB ads because only FB offers the kind of targeting necessary (just basic demographics really). None of us are big fans of FB but the business would not exist without them. Businesses that have more scale and bigger budgets can hit demos a little easier, but there's only two real games in town for many businesses: G and FB. And of course, we would never, ever advertise near porn, not for a second. In fact - if we felt that 'Tumblr' became well known or synonymous with porn, we wouldn't advertise there. As far as G, well, they have porn, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to affect their brand.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      > And of course, we would never, ever advertise near porn, not for a second. In fact - if we felt that 'Tumblr' became well known or synonymous with porn, we wouldn't advertise there. As far as G, well, they have porn, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to affect their brand. I don't understand how the first and last sentence are compatible, unless you're saying that you'd never advertise near a brand known for porn, and don't care otherwise? That's not a very principled stance, and it really does seem wastefully harmful to a lot of sites.
- johncoltrane 8y ago
  Only porn amateurs see the ads that are displayed in connection with porn so there is zero chance of brand tarnishing.
AJ007 8y ago
Google shows hardcore porn in their image search. Google will frequently show normal ads for porn keywords (At least based on what I've seen in my own Adwords account.) Tumblr's interest and traffic has been on a long decline, this deviates or accelerates the decline but who knows by how much, maybe it only sped up Tumblr's demise by 12 months ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=tumblr https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... ) I suspect the real story here was budget cuts, and moderation was a big cost center. They did a half ass job and got shitty results. The users are not going to return. I suspect they will be completely shut down or kicked back and forth between buyers indefinitely, like Myspace. These sorts of consumer web brands never seem to come back after a screw up and I doubt Tumblr is going to be an exception. There is a lot to be said about the Berkshire Hathaway way of just managing companies for the long term, not only when there isn't any growth but as they are shrinking.
rjf72 8y ago
I've wondered about this as well. Studies are difficult to find. The ostensibly answer is morals/ethics of advertisers which if not already bordering on an oxymoron, also makes no sense given that these same advertisers still happily run all the ads they can in e.g. Saudi Arabia. And they're certainly well aware that if 62% of men acknowledge watching porn that that simply means 38% of men lie about watching porn. So it's not even cultural concerns, as might explain e.g. Saudi Arabia. But I think there's probably a very simple answer. People in the mood for porn are going to be substantially focused on the content they're after, rather than getting distracted by your ad. Contrast this against something like a cat pic. Ah that's cute -- then 2 seconds later your mind and attention is wondering, ideally right on over to their ad. The porn ends up being a much worse value proposition than the cat pic, or more generally than any rapidly consumed low-effort low-intensity content. I think the exact same can also explain why advertisers prefer to avoid 'controversial' content. I expect the advertisers ostensibly kowtowing to social media outrage mobs are mostly just using them as useful idiots. They point out controversial and likely highly immersive content. Pulling out not only gets them a few social media white knight points, but also generally results in some degree of controversy which also helps spread their brand name effectively working as free advertising. You might even get things such as people deciding to follow you on social media as a means of virtue signaling. This also points to another ironic point that I think supports the above hypothesis. Advertisers are more than fine with controversy when they themselves are the controversy. See: e.g. Gillette that intentionally planned an advertising campaign exclusively around fanning the flames of a culture war.
asdff 8y ago
I think the most real reason is that it's hard to develop a targeted ad profile of a user who is doing everything in their power to make sure this particular interest of theirs is isolated from every other aspect of their life. It's just not a productive use of ad money.

Hemospectrum 8y ago

There's data on fraud and chargeback rates for adult-content-related credit card payments. They're much higher than for other goods and services. Major payment processors have blanket bans on such transactions, and will often refuse to do business with companies that don't have such bans. And you can't buy ads if you can't pay for them.

Mirioron 8y ago
Which is why we need more competition in the payment processor space. Alternatives to Visa and MasterCard are a must.

dgzl 8y ago

It's not hard to see how a business might not want their paid advertisement sitting next to pornography hosted on the platform they're paying.

p49k 8y ago

I think they are acting on a reasonable fear that the reputation of the brand could be tarnished by their placing of ads on the page, which could be seen as a tacit endorsement of the content. Let’s not forget that this is not about whether to spend money or not - it’s about where to spend money. Advertisers have countless options for where and how to advertise, so it makes sense to shift money to more boring, safe platforms where the ROI is almost identical anyway.

Joe-Z 8y ago
That‘s so absurd though. It went from „hey let‘s put a banner in this popular place, so people will know us“ to „let‘s police this place so people will only associate us with nice things“ This whole ad-based internet needs to die.
- hombre_fatal 8y ago
  I just hope it coincides with a cultural shift of people realizing they need to pay for things and that ads only made everything seem free.
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    Of people who stole a culture of freedom and openness and replaced it with... this
  - Kaiyou 8y ago
    The lack of a convenient way of anonymously paying is probably the root cause of that. There's cash, which is a pretty convenient way of anonymously paying. There's no such convenient way to pay for stuff on the Internet. Emphasis on convenient.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  It's not absurd, it's really the opposite - it's common sense. Ads are an important means for companies to get the word out for stuff you might want and they're in more places than the internet. The industry suffers from inefficiencies, surely, but it's still net beneficial. Someday we might have fewer ads, and better ads that we really want to see. If you ever get into a position where you have a company, and you run ads, and you see how it affects your business, you might have a different view. For example, I'm helping with a small new business making a very cool niche product - they'd be dead without FB ads because only FB offers the kind of targeting necessary (just basic demographics really). None of us are big fans of FB but the business would not exist without them. Businesses that have more scale and bigger budgets can hit demos a little easier, but there's only two real games in town for many businesses: G and FB. And of course, we would never, ever advertise near porn, not for a second. In fact - if we felt that 'Tumblr' became well known or synonymous with porn, we wouldn't advertise there. As far as G, well, they have porn, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to affect their brand.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    > And of course, we would never, ever advertise near porn, not for a second. In fact - if we felt that 'Tumblr' became well known or synonymous with porn, we wouldn't advertise there. As far as G, well, they have porn, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to affect their brand. I don't understand how the first and last sentence are compatible, unless you're saying that you'd never advertise near a brand known for porn, and don't care otherwise? That's not a very principled stance, and it really does seem wastefully harmful to a lot of sites.
johncoltrane 8y ago
Only porn amateurs see the ads that are displayed in connection with porn so there is zero chance of brand tarnishing.

AJ007 8y ago

Google shows hardcore porn in their image search. Google will frequently show normal ads for porn keywords (At least based on what I've seen in my own Adwords account.) Tumblr's interest and traffic has been on a long decline, this deviates or accelerates the decline but who knows by how much, maybe it only sped up Tumblr's demise by 12 months ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=tumblr https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... ) I suspect the real story here was budget cuts, and moderation was a big cost center. They did a half ass job and got shitty results. The users are not going to return. I suspect they will be completely shut down or kicked back and forth between buyers indefinitely, like Myspace. These sorts of consumer web brands never seem to come back after a screw up and I doubt Tumblr is going to be an exception. There is a lot to be said about the Berkshire Hathaway way of just managing companies for the long term, not only when there isn't any growth but as they are shrinking.

rjf72 8y ago

I've wondered about this as well. Studies are difficult to find. The ostensibly answer is morals/ethics of advertisers which if not already bordering on an oxymoron, also makes no sense given that these same advertisers still happily run all the ads they can in e.g. Saudi Arabia. And they're certainly well aware that if 62% of men acknowledge watching porn that that simply means 38% of men lie about watching porn. So it's not even cultural concerns, as might explain e.g. Saudi Arabia. But I think there's probably a very simple answer. People in the mood for porn are going to be substantially focused on the content they're after, rather than getting distracted by your ad. Contrast this against something like a cat pic. Ah that's cute -- then 2 seconds later your mind and attention is wondering, ideally right on over to their ad. The porn ends up being a much worse value proposition than the cat pic, or more generally than any rapidly consumed low-effort low-intensity content. I think the exact same can also explain why advertisers prefer to avoid 'controversial' content. I expect the advertisers ostensibly kowtowing to social media outrage mobs are mostly just using them as useful idiots. They point out controversial and likely highly immersive content. Pulling out not only gets them a few social media white knight points, but also generally results in some degree of controversy which also helps spread their brand name effectively working as free advertising. You might even get things such as people deciding to follow you on social media as a means of virtue signaling. This also points to another ironic point that I think supports the above hypothesis. Advertisers are more than fine with controversy when they themselves are the controversy. See: e.g. Gillette that intentionally planned an advertising campaign exclusively around fanning the flames of a culture war.

asdff 8y ago

I think the most real reason is that it's hard to develop a targeted ad profile of a user who is doing everything in their power to make sure this particular interest of theirs is isolated from every other aspect of their life. It's just not a productive use of ad money.