4 ms·

Advertisers Don't Want Sites Like Jezebel to Exist

20 points by walterbell 3y ago

readthenotes1 3y ago
"beloved media outlets that have done incredibly important work. " Lulz.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  Indeed. Another: >high-quality sites doing high-quality journalism like Jezebel Also: >Tousignant also explained that Jezebel was told not to put certain words like “fucking” or “suck” in a headline unless it was directly quoting someone, something 404 Media’s founders dealt with at VICE as well. Gee, could the rule have existed because perhaps the most infamous story Jezebel ever published is titled "'Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?' Asks Idiot"?!? Nah, it must be because cowardly advertisers didn't want to run ads next to brave and powerful stories about >war in Gaza, coverage of “Free Palestine” protests, coverage of terrorism, extremism, and white nationalism, articles about sex and porn, and so on "and so on", indeed.
etchalon 3y ago
A more accurate headline would be "Advertisers don't care if sites like Jezebel exist". But the statement from WGA sums in fairly well: > “A well-run company would have moved away from an advertising model, but instead they are shuttering the brand entirely because of their strategic and commercial ineptitude. Sites with niche, let alone controversial, perspectives and approaches, aren't going to attract ad dollars from Ford or Apple. Those brands have better, safer, places to spend their dollars.
- ChuckMcM 3y ago
  Yeah, something like this. There are two kinds of "advertising" model on the web, in one you put some javascript on the page and outsource your ads to one or more advertising networks. In the other, you add an advertising group to your business and they go out and talk to people about advertising on your site. Depending on your daily active users you also talk about subscriptions. But "well loved" and "not loved enough that people would actually pay money to read it" are kind of wide spread these days.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  Yes exactly. That's an example of a headline which is plainly nonsense. Advertisers don't want to advertise on sites like Jezebel. That's what they say, and that's also what they reflect in their actions by pulling advertising from sites which they don't feel reflect their brand. If Jezebel wanted to keep doing "brave" journalism that advertisers don't like, they needed to find a business model that didn't rely on advertises to pay for it.
ImAnAmateur 3y ago
The hook is about Jezebel and the meat is how some news site advertisers work. It's good stuff. But I care too much about the hook! Jezebel is (was?) one of the news websites on my mental blacklist because I saw them publish bad articles for years. Plenty of clickbait and sometimes they skewed the truth to argue their points. This happened multiple times over years and I quietly, mentally, gave them many second chances. They lost my trust. >The irony of all of this, of course, is that ads end up in places they’re nominally not supposed to be, all the time, and ads are filtered away from high-quality sites doing high-quality journalism like Jezebel to garbage, low-quality websites all the time. 404media is ignoring Jezebel's faults. If we want good retrospectives then we need to be honest with ourselves.
- beej71 3y ago
  I am ignorant of Jezebel's content in general, but these would appear to me to be two separate issues. i.e. it's possible to publish entirely factual to-the-point material that advertisers will not touch.
poisonborz 3y ago
This would be a fine "get the pitchforks" article, if we ignore the fact that plenty of news sites exist covering these topics that have a similar sized editorial team and are doing okay. There is definitely a problem and this further shows how the advertising-fueled business model poisons the content well, but for Jezebel this may have been just one overly magnified aspect.

20 points by walterbell 3y ago

readthenotes1 3y ago

"beloved media outlets that have done incredibly important work. " Lulz.

TMWNN 3y ago
Indeed. Another: >high-quality sites doing high-quality journalism like Jezebel Also: >Tousignant also explained that Jezebel was told not to put certain words like “fucking” or “suck” in a headline unless it was directly quoting someone, something 404 Media’s founders dealt with at VICE as well. Gee, could the rule have existed because perhaps the most infamous story Jezebel ever published is titled "'Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?' Asks Idiot"?!? Nah, it must be because cowardly advertisers didn't want to run ads next to brave and powerful stories about >war in Gaza, coverage of “Free Palestine” protests, coverage of terrorism, extremism, and white nationalism, articles about sex and porn, and so on "and so on", indeed.

etchalon 3y ago

A more accurate headline would be "Advertisers don't care if sites like Jezebel exist". But the statement from WGA sums in fairly well: > “A well-run company would have moved away from an advertising model, but instead they are shuttering the brand entirely because of their strategic and commercial ineptitude. Sites with niche, let alone controversial, perspectives and approaches, aren't going to attract ad dollars from Ford or Apple. Those brands have better, safer, places to spend their dollars.

ChuckMcM 3y ago
Yeah, something like this. There are two kinds of "advertising" model on the web, in one you put some javascript on the page and outsource your ads to one or more advertising networks. In the other, you add an advertising group to your business and they go out and talk to people about advertising on your site. Depending on your daily active users you also talk about subscriptions. But "well loved" and "not loved enough that people would actually pay money to read it" are kind of wide spread these days.
seanhunter 3y ago
Yes exactly. That's an example of a headline which is plainly nonsense. Advertisers don't want to advertise on sites like Jezebel. That's what they say, and that's also what they reflect in their actions by pulling advertising from sites which they don't feel reflect their brand. If Jezebel wanted to keep doing "brave" journalism that advertisers don't like, they needed to find a business model that didn't rely on advertises to pay for it.

ImAnAmateur 3y ago

The hook is about Jezebel and the meat is how some news site advertisers work. It's good stuff. But I care too much about the hook! Jezebel is (was?) one of the news websites on my mental blacklist because I saw them publish bad articles for years. Plenty of clickbait and sometimes they skewed the truth to argue their points. This happened multiple times over years and I quietly, mentally, gave them many second chances. They lost my trust. >The irony of all of this, of course, is that ads end up in places they’re nominally not supposed to be, all the time, and ads are filtered away from high-quality sites doing high-quality journalism like Jezebel to garbage, low-quality websites all the time. 404media is ignoring Jezebel's faults. If we want good retrospectives then we need to be honest with ourselves.

beej71 3y ago
I am ignorant of Jezebel's content in general, but these would appear to me to be two separate issues. i.e. it's possible to publish entirely factual to-the-point material that advertisers will not touch.

poisonborz 3y ago

This would be a fine "get the pitchforks" article, if we ignore the fact that plenty of news sites exist covering these topics that have a similar sized editorial team and are doing okay. There is definitely a problem and this further shows how the advertising-fueled business model poisons the content well, but for Jezebel this may have been just one overly magnified aspect.