4 ms·
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 adv
by 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 agoAdvertisers 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 agoThere'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 agoI 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.