Reddit, where chaos thrives, tries to clean up to attract ads from big brands • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit, where chaos thrives, tries to clean up to attract ads from big brands

#91

Post by Traster » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 10:31 AM UTC

PaulKeeble wrote: post #79

Traster wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a good reason why podcast hosts read the ad copy. Even if an advert is obviously an advert - if it comes from a trusted source it's still more effective. The adverts which are astro-turfed as real posts are more effective simply because they seem to be endorsed by the community you're a part of.

It also isn't legal throughout most of the western world so it is a pretty risky thing to be doing. Saying that no one has cracked down on the youtube channels that repeatedly do it nor websites that have been utilising it for 15 years so I guess it is pretty hard to start prosecuting now, it won't be Reddit that shows the necessity of applying that law.

There actually has been enforcement: https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/mondelez-uk-ltd-a14-275018.ht...

Re: Reddit, where chaos thrives, tries to clean up to attract ads from big brands

#92

Post by dspillett » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

samdoidge wrote: post #66

dspillett wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it is actually here in part, what votes go where, etc. does not alter that it is not considered on-topic here. "The rule is already broken in one direction, so it should be right to break it in another" isn't a helpful take IMO.

I'm not sure how you have interpreted my statement to mean the above. Please re-read without the assumptions.

> I'm not sure how you have interpreted my statement to mean the above

You said that you saw one side being downvoted. I took that as meaning you thought it should be left alone like the other side is, when IMO that is not the solution. If both are off-topic (which they usually are, by my reading of the guidelines) both should be down-voted. The fix for the imbalance is not to encourage more but from other angles, it is to enforce the desired topic limits evenly.

(using the word "side" above may be ill-advised on my part, I know most matters are far more complex than a binary this-side-and-that-side, but better wording did not spring to mind)

Re: Reddit, where chaos thrives, tries to clean up to attract ads from big brands

#93

Post by travmatt » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

yarg wrote: post #87

mwyah wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike advertising as much as the next guy but really, what alternatives do websites like reddit have?

I think this is the wrong question; who cares what options Reddit has - what other options do the users have? Reddit seems to be overplaying its hand, if they do then they'll get hit by the same obliviating exodus that others have been destroyed by in the past. Ideally the next incarnation will be more decentralised in it's structure.

Every time Reddit bans one of the more cesspool-y subreddits there’s a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and planned exoduses. The most popular alternative seems to be Voat, 8chan, or similar sites much more welcoming of violently racist (/r/chimpire, /r/coontown), political (/r/the_donald), misogynistic (/r/incel) rhetoric, or legally questionable/nonconsensual sexualization of teens (/r/jailbait, there was also a subreddit dedicated to nonconsensual pictures of women that I forget the name of), or other content that users feel they are being persecuted for sharing. While these sites struggle to find ways to find funding for site largely dedicated to sharing content much of society finds abhorrent, the bans do appear to have their intended effects of removing some of these distasteful people and rhetoric from the Reddit platform[0] with very minimal loss of users - and the users who are leaving were those who were originally propagating aforementioned material, so the loss isn’t very valuable. In the meantime, 8chan has cultivated a reputation for itself as an enclave for individuals looking to commit or celebrate mass murder.

[0](http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf)

Re: Reddit, where chaos thrives, tries to clean up to attract ads from big brands

#94

Post by tgtweak » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 10:05 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #53

JohnTClark wrote: post #45

Can someone explain to me or point to some studies or books that explain why brands, advertisers etc. think that having small problematic groups on a platform affects the brand? You are making an ad for group A and put the ad on subreddits visited by group A, is the "dirt" produce by group B that bad for you that you need to get rid of group B?

There's activist groups that target advertisers to "let them know" about a platform. They often work as mobs that basically blackmail both the advertisers and the platforms with bad publicity. Advertisers are all about publicity, and so far all of them have caved in (Not sure if they 've ever tried the alternative). Like everything in advertising, i doubt you can find a single decent study about performance.

It's much more that these brands' marketing budgets and campaigns are managed by companies that lose contracts like this when a shareholder, partner, customer or press article brings it to their attention.

At the ecosystem level this works - groups generating content that is undesirable (perspective being from the advertisers and their stakeholders) are demonetized and -in cases where policing doesn't happen - entire networks.

No publisher or network is immune to this, even Google.

It's the macro digital equivalent to boycotting and lobbying and it's effective. Advertisers have a say in where they put their money, and their money indirectly and in some cases directly enables that content.

Best you can hope for is transparency and consistency in how the policy is governed.

Re: Reddit, where chaos thrives, tries to clean up to attract ads from big brands

#95

Post by zerm778 » Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

toxican wrote: post #69

zerm778 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cause buying upvotes would not work at scale and you take the risk to get busted for doing that.

Busted how though? It's not like McDonalds, for example, would use a Mc-branded account to post random things to reddit with clearly visible McDonald cups or whatever. They'd use some throwaway account or buy an established account and buy upvotes to target that account's post. Reddit has no way to punish them for that. Maybe the reddit users find out and get pissed, but the site has no attention span and they'll for…

I get your point but do you think that massive brands like McDonalds would take this path to show you a hidden ads about their brand. no. They can pay millions to blast you their McDonalds cups on TV ads. When these kind of companies want to start to put ads on a new media they have 6 or 7 figures budget. They don't give a damn about paying a 100USD gig to have their McDonalds cups's post on the front page for 3 hours. They want their McDonalds cups on the front page ALL the time.

Re: Reddit, where chaos thrives, tries to clean up to attract ads from big brands

#96

Post by toxican » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 1:45 PM UTC

zerm778 wrote: post #95

toxican wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Busted how though? It's not like McDonalds, for example, would use a Mc-branded account to post random things to reddit with clearly visible McDonald cups or whatever. They'd use some throwaway account or buy an established account and buy upvotes to target that account's post. Reddit has no way to punish them for that. Maybe the reddit users find out and get pissed, but the site has no attention span and they'll for…

I get your point but do you think that massive brands like McDonalds would take this path to show you a hidden ads about their brand. no. They can pay millions to blast you their McDonalds cups on TV ads. When these kind of companies want to start to put ads on a new media they have 6 or 7 figures budget. They don't give a damn about paying a 100USD gig to have their McDonalds cups's post on the front page for 3 hour…

Why wouldn't they though? Astroturfing gets around adblockers entirely and reaches those who are ad-adverse because they don't necessarily realize it's an ad. It's nothing new either, it's just the internet equivalent of sitcoms having name brand products visible (and "coincidentally" turned turned so the logo faces the camera) during the show or "I, Robot" having "retro" chucks featured prominently (although obviously way more subtle than that).

My assumption is that McDonalds pays advertising companies to put ads together and distribute them. Why wouldn't they throw a couple hundred bucks at a few low-key ads in a few reddit posts. Doesn't take that many people to buy McDonalds before it pays for itself.