|
>It does not work that way. If some average person sees some brand advertised on WSJ and FT, and another competing brand on PornHub he will attach more 'premium' value to a first brand, and will pay more for owning product from this brand. That doesn't explain the connection of "porn" with "less than premium". You call it "normal and part of human nature" but looks like totally cultural. Historical prudery, and a past that associated looking at adult content with "low status", lesser citizens (and not what the "proper people do", does explain it. (While we of course know that people of all statuses and walks of life look at porn, from the industrialist, to the bank executive, to the judge). >People enjoy content from PornHub, but they want to be associated with something advertised on WSJ/FT/NYT/etc. I'd understand it if we were talking about high status ads, yaugt ads, hi-fi ads, expensive clothes ads, and so on. But most people don't read or care for WSJ/FT/NYT -- that's a small minority. Most people read magazines just as popular/mass market as People, Reader's Digest, CNN, FOX, USA Today and the like, and advertisers have no issue advertising at those. |
Brands don't want to be next to content that has that stigma.