9 ms·

If there's anyone out there who wants to earn money from advertising there are two words you need to be aware of: "BRAND SAFETY" No well known advertiser want

If there's anyone out there who wants to earn money from advertising there are two words you need to be aware of: "BRAND SAFETY" No well known advertiser wants their brand associated with something unpopular or toxic. This is why YouTube is demonetising any video that mentions Covid-19. YouTube themselves technically probably don't care, but brand safety conscious advertisers certainly do, and so YouTube must too. They've realised that Twitter and FB, and others, are currently toxic platforms. The discussion threads can be awful, driven by fascists on both the far-left and far-right of the political debate. They no longer want to buy this advertising space, it's too much of a reputational risk (I will say that advertisers outsource the buying of advertising space to Ad agencies who may not be as savvy since they're under pressure to spend allotted advertising budgets). Hence the news about big brands pulling budgets from social media. Another issue that I've never seen discussed is that if Twitter (and other social media platforms) relies completely on advertising revenue, it can be forced to only allow content that advertisers approve of. In other words, advertisers can in theory control political debate. Social media platforms then ban or remove content that's undesirable for advertisers because they can't monetise it.

joshspankit 6y ago
> if... it can be forced to allow only content that advertisers approve of. Your comment seems to state explicitly that not only can they be forced to, but they actively are, and already have been for a while. However, this fits with my intuition (especially in the now-advertiser-driven “news” space), so I may be jumping to conclusions.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
analyst74 6y ago
> it can be forced to only allow content that advertisers approve of This was already the case before social media, mainstream media has always been controlled by the powerful. By "the powerful", I don't mean a secret cabal of white men deciding what happens, but that only people with enough resources, right connections can have an influence over what gets published. This is a pretty small group and not representative of the general public. Today's backlashes against social media platforms is just the existing elites trying to take back their control. I think they're going to succeed, and we'll go back to a higher barrier of entry in terms of influencing public opinions, which can be both a good and bad thing.
- nl 6y ago
  > Today's backlashes against social media platforms is just the existing elites trying to take back their control. That's not really the case, as can been seen by the hate given to both FB and Twitter on HN.
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    HN is largely populated with the 1%.
    - nl 6y ago
      Perhaps, in the financial sense. But that's very different to the people who are typically refereed to as "the elites". That typically includes - for example - journalists - who aren't well paid at all.
      - mdpopescu 6y ago
        Journalists aren't the elite. They're the PR people working for the elite.
        rapnie 6y ago
        These generalizations and plattitudes are off the mark and dangerous. Sure, there are those working as PR for the elite, or they are honest journalists that work for MSM that is in the hands of the elites. Most journalists, especially investigative journalists want to do their job as well as they can, in an environment that is increasingly hostile to good journalism. We need these people to help keep our democracy intact.
        tonyedgecombe 6y ago
        Using elite as a term of derision is rather silly anyway. Who else would you want running the country than the most skilled and accomplished?
        6y ago
guerrilla 6y ago
> fascists on both the far-left While I appreciate your comment otherwise, fascism is universally agreed to be a far-right ideology and claiming otherwise at this point in history can't really be taken as anything but inflammatory, which isn't what belongs here in an otherwise insightful comment.
- camillomiller 6y ago
  Good people on both sides...
- wolco 6y ago
  You proved that faacists can exist on both the left or the right by your last post. Imposing that point of view is equally unpleasant right or left.
  - mirimir 6y ago
    Just how did they "prove" that? And just who is doing the "imposing" here?
    - wolco 6y ago
      Parent poster is the who. Proof can be found in the aggressive tone and imposing the opinion that only the right can be this way. Leave a little room for discussion.
      - mirimir 6y ago
        Hey, it's just an opinion. And it's arguably not clear-cut. Or at least, the Wikipedia article doesn't think so.
- mirimir 6y ago
  Actually the full quote is: > fascists on both the far-left and far-right of the political debate According to Merriam-Webster, fascism is:[0] > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition It's true that some on both the "left" and "right" (which is an absurdly simplistic one-dimensional distinction) are over-the-top extremist and forcibly suppress their opposition. However, that's only one aspect of the definition of "fascist". Even so, Merriam-Webster doesn't restrict fascism to the right wing, so I defer to it. But Wikipedia does.[1] Last, I note that the Soviet Union was arguably fascist. While it didn't exalt any nation above the individual, it did exalt the Party, and more generally the state. And its government was certainly autocratic and dictatorial. 0) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
tomp 6y ago
> No well known advertiser wants their brand associated with something unpopular or toxic. That's pre-historic thinking. No reasonable long-term user of Social Media would think that a Frozen ad showing next to some BLM/white supremacist content means that Disney endorses violence/racism. It just means that you've liked Frozen (or similar things) before. The dinosaurs will die out. They'll be replaced by social-media-savy advertisers.
- jasode 6y ago
  >No reasonable long-term user of Social Media would think that a Frozen ad showing next to some BLM/white supremacist content means that Disney endorses violence/racism. It just means that you've liked Frozen (or similar things) before. It's not that simple. The other angle you're missing is that advocacy groups (as a proxy for some customers) pressure advertisers to stop funding entities they don't approve of. E.g. the "Stop Funding Hate" to pressure companies to stop advertising in conservative newspapers. Therefore, it's not enough if Disney itself doesn't approve of white supremacists. It's also not enough if Disney's customers also know that Disney doesn't approve of neo-Nazis. Instead, protesters would insist that Disney to take further measures of "not funding white supremacists" by not advertising (or allowing Google to show their ads) next to Nazi content. Thus "brand safety" isn't just about association. It's also about how customers connect the dots between the company and the funding of activities they disapprove of. [btw, I didn't downvote your comment.]
- luckylion 6y ago
  That may be true at some point in the future, but I believe we're quite far away from it. Most users on the internet are not savvy at all, and I don't see that changing. I had expected the younger generations to be "digital natives", but they're not. They know their apps and services, but it's not a generalized understanding to how things work or what's common. Imho the fact that adblocker-usage isn't approaching 100% is a powerful demonstration of it. Additionally, there's the subconscious effects. Even if they consciously understand that it's based on their ad profile, brand will likely still not advertise there. There may be some exceptions (Benetton comes to mind), but I don't think Disney ever wants their ads to be displayed in an article about Auschwitz.
asjw 6y ago
Any brand wants potential customers And social networks have hundreds of millions of them Do you think Coca Cola cares if KKK members drink it and bottles of Coke are shown in pictures of their rallies? Brand awareness is more important to them Starbucks cups with name spelled wrong are the perfect example: people think they are funny and post the picture of the cup with the Starbucks logo making the brand more popular So what seem an honest mistake is actually a well thought brand awareness campaign
- secondcoming 6y ago
  You're right, Coca Cola does not care if KKK members drink their product; a sale is a sale. They most certainly do care about being seen to be actively targeting the KKK audience.
  - chinesempire 6y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure about it. https://creativeloafing.com/content-219258-Activists-block-Stone-Mountain-carving-to-protest-CocaCola-sponsorship-of-state-park https://creativeloafing.com/content-219258-Activists-block-S... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/when-jim-crow-drank-coke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/when-jim-crow-dra... https://medium.com/@FrankCastro/she-doesnt-look-american-coca-cola-re-branding-white-supremacy-americawakiewakie-213b3c038633 https://medium.com/@FrankCastro/she-doesnt-look-american-coc...

joshspankit 6y ago

> if... it can be forced to allow only content that advertisers approve of. Your comment seems to state explicitly that not only can they be forced to, but they actively are, and already have been for a while. However, this fits with my intuition (especially in the now-advertiser-driven “news” space), so I may be jumping to conclusions.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

analyst74 6y ago

> it can be forced to only allow content that advertisers approve of This was already the case before social media, mainstream media has always been controlled by the powerful. By "the powerful", I don't mean a secret cabal of white men deciding what happens, but that only people with enough resources, right connections can have an influence over what gets published. This is a pretty small group and not representative of the general public. Today's backlashes against social media platforms is just the existing elites trying to take back their control. I think they're going to succeed, and we'll go back to a higher barrier of entry in terms of influencing public opinions, which can be both a good and bad thing.

nl 6y ago
> Today's backlashes against social media platforms is just the existing elites trying to take back their control. That's not really the case, as can been seen by the hate given to both FB and Twitter on HN.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  HN is largely populated with the 1%.
  - nl 6y ago
    Perhaps, in the financial sense. But that's very different to the people who are typically refereed to as "the elites". That typically includes - for example - journalists - who aren't well paid at all.
    - mdpopescu 6y ago
      Journalists aren't the elite. They're the PR people working for the elite.
      - rapnie 6y ago
        These generalizations and plattitudes are off the mark and dangerous. Sure, there are those working as PR for the elite, or they are honest journalists that work for MSM that is in the hands of the elites. Most journalists, especially investigative journalists want to do their job as well as they can, in an environment that is increasingly hostile to good journalism. We need these people to help keep our democracy intact.
      - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
        Using elite as a term of derision is rather silly anyway. Who else would you want running the country than the most skilled and accomplished?
        6y ago

guerrilla 6y ago

> fascists on both the far-left While I appreciate your comment otherwise, fascism is universally agreed to be a far-right ideology and claiming otherwise at this point in history can't really be taken as anything but inflammatory, which isn't what belongs here in an otherwise insightful comment.

camillomiller 6y ago
Good people on both sides...
wolco 6y ago
You proved that faacists can exist on both the left or the right by your last post. Imposing that point of view is equally unpleasant right or left.
- mirimir 6y ago
  Just how did they "prove" that? And just who is doing the "imposing" here?
  - wolco 6y ago
    Parent poster is the who. Proof can be found in the aggressive tone and imposing the opinion that only the right can be this way. Leave a little room for discussion.
    - mirimir 6y ago
      Hey, it's just an opinion. And it's arguably not clear-cut. Or at least, the Wikipedia article doesn't think so.
mirimir 6y ago
Actually the full quote is: > fascists on both the far-left and far-right of the political debate According to Merriam-Webster, fascism is:[0] > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition It's true that some on both the "left" and "right" (which is an absurdly simplistic one-dimensional distinction) are over-the-top extremist and forcibly suppress their opposition. However, that's only one aspect of the definition of "fascist". Even so, Merriam-Webster doesn't restrict fascism to the right wing, so I defer to it. But Wikipedia does.[1] Last, I note that the Soviet Union was arguably fascist. While it didn't exalt any nation above the individual, it did exalt the Party, and more generally the state. And its government was certainly autocratic and dictatorial. 0) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

tomp 6y ago

> No well known advertiser wants their brand associated with something unpopular or toxic. That's pre-historic thinking. No reasonable long-term user of Social Media would think that a Frozen ad showing next to some BLM/white supremacist content means that Disney endorses violence/racism. It just means that you've liked Frozen (or similar things) before. The dinosaurs will die out. They'll be replaced by social-media-savy advertisers.

jasode 6y ago
>No reasonable long-term user of Social Media would think that a Frozen ad showing next to some BLM/white supremacist content means that Disney endorses violence/racism. It just means that you've liked Frozen (or similar things) before. It's not that simple. The other angle you're missing is that advocacy groups (as a proxy for some customers) pressure advertisers to stop funding entities they don't approve of. E.g. the "Stop Funding Hate" to pressure companies to stop advertising in conservative newspapers. Therefore, it's not enough if Disney itself doesn't approve of white supremacists. It's also not enough if Disney's customers also know that Disney doesn't approve of neo-Nazis. Instead, protesters would insist that Disney to take further measures of "not funding white supremacists" by not advertising (or allowing Google to show their ads) next to Nazi content. Thus "brand safety" isn't just about association. It's also about how customers connect the dots between the company and the funding of activities they disapprove of. [btw, I didn't downvote your comment.]
luckylion 6y ago
That may be true at some point in the future, but I believe we're quite far away from it. Most users on the internet are not savvy at all, and I don't see that changing. I had expected the younger generations to be "digital natives", but they're not. They know their apps and services, but it's not a generalized understanding to how things work or what's common. Imho the fact that adblocker-usage isn't approaching 100% is a powerful demonstration of it. Additionally, there's the subconscious effects. Even if they consciously understand that it's based on their ad profile, brand will likely still not advertise there. There may be some exceptions (Benetton comes to mind), but I don't think Disney ever wants their ads to be displayed in an article about Auschwitz.

asjw 6y ago

Any brand wants potential customers And social networks have hundreds of millions of them Do you think Coca Cola cares if KKK members drink it and bottles of Coke are shown in pictures of their rallies? Brand awareness is more important to them Starbucks cups with name spelled wrong are the perfect example: people think they are funny and post the picture of the cup with the Starbucks logo making the brand more popular So what seem an honest mistake is actually a well thought brand awareness campaign

secondcoming 6y ago
You're right, Coca Cola does not care if KKK members drink their product; a sale is a sale. They most certainly do care about being seen to be actively targeting the KKK audience.
- chinesempire 6y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure about it. https://creativeloafing.com/content-219258-Activists-block-Stone-Mountain-carving-to-protest-CocaCola-sponsorship-of-state-park https://creativeloafing.com/content-219258-Activists-block-S... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/when-jim-crow-drank-coke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/when-jim-crow-dra... https://medium.com/@FrankCastro/she-doesnt-look-american-coca-cola-re-branding-white-supremacy-americawakiewakie-213b3c038633 https://medium.com/@FrankCastro/she-doesnt-look-american-coc...