4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoYes 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.