[heywintermute]

>Or is there something intrinsic to Reddit traffic that makes it difficult to monetize?

Reddit is also home to an enormous amount of porn and nsfw content in general which probably hurts this. They only just started preventing sexually explicit subreddits/content from appearing on r/all six months ago[0]

https://www.reddit.com/r/changelog/comments/lhnvok/removing_...

[f6v]

It’s not going to be Tumblr all over again if they choose to ban it. But I wonder how many people use Reddit just for nsfw.

[NationalPark]

I wonder if their problem is that the majority of their traffic is unregistered users looking at NSFW subreddits. So they may not actually have that many users they could monetize in the first place.

[michannne]

Simple fix: allow users to save video only if logged in (could prime with a CTA). Right now you cant save any video from reddit, not just nsfw, not even from the app. This would incentivize people to create an account since its easier and less shady than content grabbing sites. If they want they can even limit to the app which would at least have an impact on boosting app users

[mike_d]

Reply to a video with a comment mentioning u/savevideo and you'll get a response in a few minutes with a link. I think Reddit Enhancement Suite might also have an option for adding a download link.

As for an official paid feature: as soon as they start collecting money for video related features, the video creators will start circling for their cut of the revenue.

[lmm]

> Reply to a video with a comment mentioning u/savevideo and you'll get a response in a few minutes with a link.

Not anymore, they've banned it.

[cromulen]

No they haven't. It voluntarily and temporarily shut down. Someone was pretending to represent Reddit threatened to sue u/savevideo, but Reddit admins stepped in and confirmed it wasn't them and that they don't have anything against u/savevideo

[ohgodplsno]

Great, make not-logged-in reddit even more terrible than it already is. That's going to go super well.

[kevinmchugh]

I thought they made NSFW require login a couple years ago

[NationalPark]

That’s mobile only I think but you’re right.

[aeyes]

Why does it matter to advertisers if the user is registered or not?

NSFW content can work perfectly fine to get users on the platform, even if it can't be monetized.

[Seattle3503]

The NSFW part of reddit is becoming like backpage. people arent just selling videos and pics, but encounters too.

[Smashure]

That was when I left Reddit. I felt like censoring from r/all is not what I want from r/all. To me that means every subreddit except quarantined subreddits. Once they started down that road I took off and haven’t been back.

[markdown]

This is like refusing to visit a town because they don't allow the local strip club to advertise on the billboards there.

I mean, the town hasn't banned the strip club, and you can still visit it any time you want.

Why do you care what's on r/all?

[vmception]

to me, this seems like an opportunity for new advertisers that don't care about "their brand showing up next to porn"

is there a market rational reason why this hasn't occurred, or are the primary places that happen to also have adult content just assuming advertisers won't use their platform

sure, big fortune 500 ad spends are lucrative, but so is the aggregate of every single half baked idea that has to test the waters with targeted ads

[arsome]

It made headlines not long ago when Just-Eat I believe was advertising on porn sites, so it's not an impossible ask... but marketers will want to play those campaigns very carefully. It wouldn't take much to accidentally end up next to revenge porn that makes the news or something.

[vmception]

> but marketers will want to play those campaigns very carefully. It wouldn't take much to accidentally end up next to revenge porn that makes the news or something.

Can you elaborate further? why is this the marketer's problem?

why isn't the ad campaigner completely agnostic on where the ad network sends it?

to me, it seems like widespread conjecture. out of the things I've seen people talk about boycotting a brand for, showing up in a banner on a porn site hasn't been one of them. People know how targeting works, their session and the ad networks.

is there a case study supporting marketer's skittishness?

[sushid]

Not the original commenter but it's because the marketer doesn't want to be associated with the content. It may devalue the product, be the wrong target audience, cause some social media backlash, etc. (e.g. Disney wouldn't want to advertise Disney+ on a revenge porn page since it would ruin their family-friendly image).

> People know how targeting works, their session and the ad networks.

People in your network maybe. If that were widely true you wouldn't see people swearing that FB is listening to you for showing a mattress ad after you spent an hour searching for it on your computer. The average American has no idea what the hell is going on.

[pjc50]

The only situations I'm aware of of general brand contamination are the @stopfundinghate ones, and that's very different - pointing out to brands when their stuff is appearing next to far right content.