4 ms·

Yes. It seems bizarre to me. There are ads in the physical Sunday newspaper right next to a story about a murder. I don't assume the advertiser supports murder.

by donatj 4y ago

Yes. It seems bizarre to me. There are ads in the physical Sunday newspaper right next to a story about a murder. I don't assume the advertiser supports murder. Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick. This seems easily solvable if Google just strong-armed them. Stand up and say "We will serve your ads on all our content or none of it". Like it really seems like they have the demographic advertisers want. There'd be some gnashing of teeth, but they'd get over it I'm sure.

Maken 4y ago
The Sunday newspaper has limited physical space and probably justifies the ad placement on layout constraints. Google, on the other hand, has built a multi-billion empire over the premise that they can show every single ad to potential consumers. So, when Google is showing your ads to people interested in porn, violence and political controversial topics, it is by extension implying that they are your target audience and the ones your product is designed for.
concinds 4y ago
> Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick. Forget about "people". "People" don't think anything, do anything, or change anything. A Twitter account ran by two marketers & copywriters ("Sleeping Giants") copied Gamergate's tactics, went viral, and, by making advertisers fear a botted hashtag damaging their brand, these two marketers singlehandedly made YouTube, Facebook, etc more censorious and delete-happy. The effects are still felt today. It's one of the best viral marketing experiments run in the 2010s after #Kony2012. Absolutely brilliant.
jwond 4y ago
> Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I think from the advertisers’ perspective it may also be about just wanting to avoid a negative association. If an ad for a product runs on a video of an interview with a prostitute, then there’s a risk that people might form some association (perhaps unconsciously) between that product and prostitution, or even just an association between the product and any negative emotions from watching the video. It may not be completely logical, but emotions are often not completely logical.

by donatj 4y ago

Maken 4y ago

The Sunday newspaper has limited physical space and probably justifies the ad placement on layout constraints. Google, on the other hand, has built a multi-billion empire over the premise that they can show every single ad to potential consumers. So, when Google is showing your ads to people interested in porn, violence and political controversial topics, it is by extension implying that they are your target audience and the ones your product is designed for.

concinds 4y ago

> Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't see a terrorist video and think man Proctor and Gamble sure loves terrorists. An ad is just something unrelated to the content on the page, like the buttons. The YouTube logo is on the page. Does that mean I'm supposed to think YouTube stands behind everything on there? Because that's going to get real problematic real quick. Forget about "people". "People" don't think anything, do anything, or change anything. A Twitter account ran by two marketers & copywriters ("Sleeping Giants") copied Gamergate's tactics, went viral, and, by making advertisers fear a botted hashtag damaging their brand, these two marketers singlehandedly made YouTube, Facebook, etc more censorious and delete-happy. The effects are still felt today. It's one of the best viral marketing experiments run in the 2010s after #Kony2012. Absolutely brilliant.

jwond 4y ago

> Do people actually think ads mean the company's approve of the messages of the content? It doesn't make sense to me. I think from the advertisers’ perspective it may also be about just wanting to avoid a negative association. If an ad for a product runs on a video of an interview with a prostitute, then there’s a risk that people might form some association (perhaps unconsciously) between that product and prostitution, or even just an association between the product and any negative emotions from watching the video. It may not be completely logical, but emotions are often not completely logical.