2 ms·
This is always the excuse thrown around. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not on Nike, Coke or mega-corp advertising level, but I do spend a lot with g
by Alupis 3y ago
This is always the excuse thrown around. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm not on Nike, Coke or mega-corp advertising level, but I do spend a lot with google's advertising apparatus, including on youtube-based adverts - not one time have I cared about how controversial or whatever a video might be. I simply want engagement from in-market potential customers... regardless of what content they're watching.
Who are these people that think a Nike commercial being randomly played before a video has anything to do with some sort of endorsement of the video's content?
- Laremere 3y agoJournalists both have an incentive to generate a story, and potentially harm a competitor in the ad selling space. So they find as controversial of a video they can find (possibly with really low view counts), start a screen recorder, then hit refresh until a major brand's ad shows up before the video. Now they can run a headline like "Nike financially supports pro-genocide content on YouTube". It's not an entirely unfair thing either. That is something that is happening, just in miniscule amounts. So YouTube introduced brand safety options which predict how safe a video is and avoids such potential headlines. However since it's just an algorithm, it doesn't understand nuance. So now creators who are making educational content about tough subjects earn less money because they are bucketed as unsafe. Since unsafe content has less advertising biders, it earns less money.