4 ms·

It's not virtue signaling to not want your brand displayed next to hateful content. Brand safety isn't just avoiding "things you personally don't like" it's avo

It's not virtue signaling to not want your brand displayed next to hateful content. Brand safety isn't just avoiding "things you personally don't like" it's avoiding "things your customers have negative associations with that could transfer to your brand"... I don't care what political party death threats are directed at, I don't want my ad displayed next to a death threat. It's not a moral objection, it's a business decision.

randyrand 4y ago
They would do their best to distance themself from encouraging the threat itself, but if ads next to death threats lead to a lot of views and purchases most advertisers would undoubtedly jump at the opportunity. Case in point: Any news company. 95% of their content is about objectionable actions taken by objectionable people. But ad money rolls in despite being placed next to crime, rape, murder, racism, war, and yes, even death threats. They’re literally monetizing crime. Being advertised next to something is not necessarily an endorsement of that thing. They’re orthogonal
- skyyler 4y ago
  Advertisers care DEEPLY about the things that surround their brand when it comes up in an ad. Your case in point... advertisers regularly try to get news companies to not run certain stories. Advertisers are rarely successful, but it does happen! https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 Advertisers have a lot more say about the morals we have in modern times than you think. "female presenting nipples"
- viraptor 4y ago
  There's a big difference between reporting about something (people choosing to read the news, getting ads on the side), and advertising the threats (people see that advert they didn't expect next to your advert they didn't expect). Your initial assertion doesn't hold either. For example you can advertise through TrafficJunky way cheaper than on social media. Yet most companies don't.
  - randyrand 4y ago
    I agree there is a difference. But the assertion was the advertisers don’t want to be next to crime, racism, etc. I’m just giving a simple example that, largely, it is not true. You can be next to unsavory things and still get tons of ads, if you do it right.
    - skyyler 4y ago
      Maybe you don't notice the effects that your brand being next to stuff like porn has because you're not operating at the scale where that sort of thing matters? You're probably not running national or global ad campaigns.
      - bilirubin 4y ago

randyrand 4y ago

They would do their best to distance themself from encouraging the threat itself, but if ads next to death threats lead to a lot of views and purchases most advertisers would undoubtedly jump at the opportunity. Case in point: Any news company. 95% of their content is about objectionable actions taken by objectionable people. But ad money rolls in despite being placed next to crime, rape, murder, racism, war, and yes, even death threats. They’re literally monetizing crime. Being advertised next to something is not necessarily an endorsement of that thing. They’re orthogonal

skyyler 4y ago
Advertisers care DEEPLY about the things that surround their brand when it comes up in an ad. Your case in point... advertisers regularly try to get news companies to not run certain stories. Advertisers are rarely successful, but it does happen! https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 Advertisers have a lot more say about the morals we have in modern times than you think. "female presenting nipples"
viraptor 4y ago
There's a big difference between reporting about something (people choosing to read the news, getting ads on the side), and advertising the threats (people see that advert they didn't expect next to your advert they didn't expect). Your initial assertion doesn't hold either. For example you can advertise through TrafficJunky way cheaper than on social media. Yet most companies don't.
- randyrand 4y ago
  I agree there is a difference. But the assertion was the advertisers don’t want to be next to crime, racism, etc. I’m just giving a simple example that, largely, it is not true. You can be next to unsavory things and still get tons of ads, if you do it right.
  - skyyler 4y ago
    Maybe you don't notice the effects that your brand being next to stuff like porn has because you're not operating at the scale where that sort of thing matters? You're probably not running national or global ad campaigns.
    - bilirubin 4y ago