[rfdub]

The thing I really, really don't get about modern media companies (IE. YouTube, Facebook, etc.) and their approach to advertising is their almost universally puritanical policies. I mean I get it to a point, they're trying to mitigate the risks of someone getting offended and suing them or something, but at the same time its such a lazy and one size fits all approach.

They have all this data about people, yet they're too lazy, or too genuinely puritanical, to actually use that data to show the right ads to the right people. Take for instance the category of drug "paraphernalia," (not to mention actual drugs). Neither Facebook, YouTube or Google will allow advertisers to advertise for these kinds of products, even in markets where they are completely legal. You'd think a more reasonable, and profitable approach, would be to use all that data to only allow advertisers to target these kinds of ads to people of legal age, in markets where these products are legal, but no, no-one can advertise them to anyone, anywhere, ever.

And what about sex toys? Why can't videos of say sex toy reviews, be age-gated, and then so called "Adult ads," you know, only be shown to the verified adults watching those videos? I'm sure there are lots of sex toy companies who would love to advertise to that audience, and I'm sure someone watching a sex toy review video would much rather see an ad for a sex toy than for another fucking Nissan, but yet again, Google et all would rather impose their bizarrely puritanical morality on the world, than do their jobs and build a system that actually works.

[ntuch]

>use that data to show the right ads to the right people

To expand on what you're saying here, YouTube allows offended people to bully them by contacting advertisers and saying things like, "YouTube is putting ads for your company in front of videos about hitler!!" And YouTube just immediately caves to that.

YouTube's response from day one should have been, "no, we don't put ads in front of videos, that's not how this works. This isn't tv where the ad is broadcast whether someone is watching or not. This is a website that plays videos you ask for. We (youtube) have data about you. We (try to) select an ad specifically for you. We did not play that ad for Pepsi because it has anything to do with hitler. We played it because (our data suggested) the ad is relevant to you. And then afterward, we played the Hitler vid because that's what you clicked on."

That seems like such an obvious, slam dunk response to me. I think the reason YouTube didn't push back in that manner is that they welcomed the excuse to start pushing political content they don't like off their platform.

[Tarq0n]

In addition to what you're saying, it feels like YouTube is underestimating their leverage over advertisers. They hold exclusive access rights to either the biggest or second biggest audience for video content in the world. It seems to me that advertisers need YouTube far more than YouTube needs any individual advertiser.

The demonitization policy also seems overly broad. While not wanting to display ads before literal executions makes sense, the blanket bans on profanity or use of brand names are counterproductive. People mostly watch videos from creators they like, or that are similar to videos they've watched before. That means that the content in question isn't objectionable to the viewer themselves, and won't cause them to form a negative association with the advertiser's brand. Advertisers should WANT their content to be next to content that the viewer is positively disposed to, regardless of what that content is.

[Pharaoh2]

Except that hitler video is now making money from the pepsi ad. And its not far fetched to say that pepsi is giving money to creators of that video and when pepsi exec find out that that is a thing, they will want to shut it down asap.

PR is not a logical thing because people aren't logical, they are emotional and in that context your logic doesn't mean anything...

[jacksmith21006]

Based on what do you think Google is pushing off political context they do not like? We can see the screen here that there is nothing like that. Would suggest your allegation is untrue and Google is doing g nothing like you suggest and is the exact opposite.

[whatshisface]

On one of the images, they advise the moderators to demonetize controversial content, and then make exceptions for certian controversies (which Google does not feel it would be right to suppress). This is obviously bias; it's the definition of bias. It just doesn't feel like bias to us because if we were made autocrats and instructed to rule as undemocratically as possible, we would enforce the same bias.

[erdle]

It's not "modern" companies or tech companies... it's the advertisers that run ads on media networks.

I worked as a copywriter for most of my 20s in Manhattan... have a ton of friends at all levels of the business from ad sales to OOH to Facebook.

My friends in TV ad sales always say the same thing when a company or product comes up at a party... "oh, ____ is actually a client of mine, love them, got shit faced the other week at lunch... but I don't buy their product because they're homophobes."

"What?"

"Oh, they're in my Excel sheet of companies that have requested to not be on Bravo... because of the content. too many gay dudes on shows."

I've had plenty of friends that worked in daytime and network ad sales where they literally would get an email with all the "issues" people might have with an upcoming episode of a popular show, when the issues would appear and what slots they can move the commercials into. They then spend the day calling all their advertisers and media buyers so they can go manage expectations and start moving spots around. People have no idea how much deal making has to happen with Fortune 500 company marketing departments and media agencies every time there is something 30% of this country would find offensive such as men kissing... or... men kissing... or someone saying "fuck".

Now, the people at these companies usually aren't actually homophobes... they usually just don't want to anger the far right and the groups that support their beliefs.

Then you get into the creative. I had a very popular underwear company as a client back in the day... part of every shoot was a reminder that we had to play by their rules. If there's a couple in their underwear... they have to both be wearing wedding rings because otherwise Christian groups will complain. This is common in many ads... look for the rings. We even had a Christian football star become a spokesperson for the company... but part of his contract had it so that he couldn't appear in underwear bc of his values and those of his supporters. So we put him in undershirts.

Then you have race and everything else.

But this all comes down to money and those with the money need to start flexing or support other platforms.

[tzs]

> Google et all would rather impose their bizarrely puritanical morality on the world, than do their jobs and build a system that actually works.

I'm having a bit of trouble with the idea that something that is generating around $80 000 000 000 per year revenue and has been growing ~20% per year for the last several years is not something that "actually works".

[CaptSpify]

It's the filtering that isn't working, not the platform

[juanmirocks]

Likely same reason as for the Apple Store's policies. The market of family- and children-friendly content is huge, so these platforms do not want to have any dark stuff associated to them.

Either way, that also leaves a hole, that is, an opportunity for other services.

The possibility to target ads to the the very specific taste of single individuals is very recent and, I would argue, not fully mastered yet.

[fhood]

I mean sex toys and bongs are one thing but excess profanity? Are you kidding me?