[coldtea]

>A great deal of advertising revolves around "brand awareness". You may not be selling a particular product to the consumer, but keeping your brand in the mind of the consumer. Understandably so, not all advertisers want their brand associated with adult content.

If all brands allowed their ads to appear next to adult content, then it wouldn't be any special association for any particular brand, just another outlet.

So I guess it has more to do with the historical prudery of some countries, when an ad appearing next to adult content would trigger angry letters to the editor, editorials, and so on from "concerned citizens".

That said, advertisers didn't seem to have much issue advertising all kinds of stuff on Playboy back in the day, or FHM and the like today...

[k_sze]

> That said, advertisers didn't seem to have much issue advertising all kinds of stuff on Playboy back in the day, or FHM and the like today...

I guess it’s because Playboy and FHM are somehow considered tasteful and for connoisseurs?

[ethbro]

I suppose that was Hugh Hefner's brilliance. That if Playboy was seen as "tasteful porn", then advertising space instantly became more valuable.

[azernik]

> If all brands allowed their ads to appear next to adult content, then it wouldn't be any special association for any particular brand, just another outlet.

Well yeah. Brands aren't going to put in the effort to solve a thorny collective action problem just to open up a bit more ad space. They're trying to make money, not repair broken social norms.