3 ms·
"Advertisers don't want to do anything that would alienate or otherwise put-off their population of potential buyers" I'm not sure they think like this anymore.
by alwaysrunning 3y ago
"Advertisers don't want to do anything that would alienate or otherwise put-off their population of potential buyers" I'm not sure they think like this anymore.
- dragontamer 3y agoA big example of a faux pas within the past few years was some Airplane crash was being highlighted by the Twitter-algorithm as "Relevant to Airplanes", and a bunch of airlines were getting their advertising placed next to the crash. That pissed off ... some company... and apparently Twitter promised tools to help prevent this in the future. Those tools have been breaking this year. An advertisement's ability to generate good-will to the company is entirely dependent on context. Airplane advertisements (ie: Fly with Southwest) mean completely different things when they're next to airplane crashing news. ----------------------------- Simple rules like "If you have news about an airplane crash or other such disaster, please skip my advertisement until the next cycle" are a thing in traditional media. Especially for the high-paying industries. They expect an advertising partner to help control the context in which their advertisements are shown. EDIT: Another example is Micky Mouse or Tony the Tiger (and other such mascots) showing up next to Twitter Furry-porn. There's plenty of reasons for a company to try to control the context. In the case of furry-porn, its all legal (though uncomfortable), but it really makes animal-based mascots shown in a grossly different light and is terrible for messaging.
- water-data-dude 3y agoThat being said…Micky Mouse or Tony the Tiger showing up next to furry porn is likely to have a positive reaction from most consumers of furry porn, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯