dude, thank you! As someone who lived through the YouTube Adpocalypse and saw first hand the damage it did (and is still doing) to YT creators, I appreciate you voicing how ridiculous this topic is. IMO: It was a decisive effort to disrupt an ecosystem that declined to manage the voices on their platform, and by pulling out, forced YT to conform to a more predictable content model. That was such a huge loss and was caused by winey marketers who didn't understand the platform. YT didn't suffer, the brands never once suffered; independent voices took the hit.
Love the analogy. The "brand safety" crutch can give brands plausible deniability but it's also another method to acquire free impressions. It's been escalating for years and why we've seen a growing number of AdTech/MarTech focused on "brand safety." This tech plays a significant part of the supply chain. Varying methodologies (across the tech), operational implementation (ex. blocking vs. monitoring), post-delivery accounting, etc. all play a role in gaining these "efficiencies."
YES! >>> "There’s a really good solution here: give news sites your money because you know that journalism matters." Brands may "shy away" from the leanings of various publications but the overall presence on notable, trusted news sites continues to be undermined in the supply chain. I've worked with countless agencies who were continually updating site and/or keyword blocking.
In defense of brands, they are likely to contend they have difficulty aligning the right corporate message with the expectation of the ad (increasingly KPI/performance-driven vs. awareness/branding). This is where brands have the opportunity to thoughtfully show support for the movement and the trusted sources covering these stories (imagine a brand underwriting free access to BLM content behind paywalls). There are countless dynamic creative options to execute such an alignment and maybe earn some meaningful attention.
Journalism is becoming the solar garlic that starts to rot. It sucks.
dude, thank you! As someone who lived through the YouTube Adpocalypse and saw first hand the damage it did (and is still doing) to YT creators, I appreciate you voicing how ridiculous this topic is. IMO: It was a decisive effort to disrupt an ecosystem that declined to manage the voices on their platform, and by pulling out, forced YT to conform to a more predictable content model. That was such a huge loss and was caused by winey marketers who didn't understand the platform. YT didn't suffer, the brands never once suffered; independent voices took the hit.
Love the analogy. The "brand safety" crutch can give brands plausible deniability but it's also another method to acquire free impressions. It's been escalating for years and why we've seen a growing number of AdTech/MarTech focused on "brand safety." This tech plays a significant part of the supply chain. Varying methodologies (across the tech), operational implementation (ex. blocking vs. monitoring), post-delivery accounting, etc. all play a role in gaining these "efficiencies."
YES! >>> "There’s a really good solution here: give news sites your money because you know that journalism matters." Brands may "shy away" from the leanings of various publications but the overall presence on notable, trusted news sites continues to be undermined in the supply chain. I've worked with countless agencies who were continually updating site and/or keyword blocking.
In defense of brands, they are likely to contend they have difficulty aligning the right corporate message with the expectation of the ad (increasingly KPI/performance-driven vs. awareness/branding). This is where brands have the opportunity to thoughtfully show support for the movement and the trusted sources covering these stories (imagine a brand underwriting free access to BLM content behind paywalls). There are countless dynamic creative options to execute such an alignment and maybe earn some meaningful attention.
Journalism is becoming the solar garlic that starts to rot. It sucks.