| > Or advertising in those places has relatively little impact on image and produced little controversy compared to the scale of audience it gives access to. That's true of anything on youtube. > I think Laura Ingraham is pretty good recent evidence that advertisers do respond to controversy in the TV advertising market. No. That proves my point. The only reason some advertisers pulled their ads from her show is because of outside pressure ( AKA other news organizations and NGOs putting pressure on them ). As I said, advertisers don't care about content. They care about reach. Saudis can kill gays and ban women from driving. The chinese can pollute and steal prisoners organs. CNN/Foxnews and the rest of the news media can clickbait dead children for ratings. Advertisers are willing to advertise in saudi arabia, china, CNN, etc. As I said, from 2011 to 2016, advertisers were happy as clams to advertisers on youtube. What changed? The only thing that changed is that large media companies decided to attack youtube and advertisers in order to leech more money for themselves. Everyone is dirty. It's business. There is no such thing as morality. Do you think advertisers peddling for oil companies or soda companies are moral? Do you think propagandists like CNN/Foxnews/NYTimes/Washingtonpost/etc are moral? Do you think youtube/google/alphabet is moral? Of course not. It's simply a matter of who has to power to push whom around. The tech industry is too young, too divided and too weak to push back against a media war against them. |