Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brands need to fire adtech

artplusmarketing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 160 posts

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#101

Post by generic_user »

The claim that Corporations have some fundamental opposition to how online advertising works with tracking and spying and personal data collection is total baloney.

No one has made any demands to change how these networks work or to stop collecting data.

What they want is essentially a demonetization blacklist. So that a handful of billionaires who own these companies can hand youtube, facebook and who ever else a list of people and organizations with the 'wrong opinions' and have them demonetized, delisted and otherwise disappeared.

Who gets to decide what is fake news? And who gets to decide what is and is not 'hate speech' and 'extremism'. The Billionaire board members of a few multinational corporations? That's not democracy, its corporate fascism.

This is how the one percent fights back against populism. These people have been given some nasty black eyes in the past few years and there not use to it. There use to running things in the background and now there not getting what they want and the democratic process is not working in there favor. So there going to fight back in any way they can. Including attacking the internet and the ability for people to have there voices heard.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#102

Post by jlawer »

I think the solution for the google / youtube issue would be to have 2-4 tiers of content. And let brands decided what tiers their Ads are displayed against.

Tier 1 Vetted - Google marks a video for vetting when it has enough views. A Human checks the video and approves it. This lets google charge more for the "trusted ads", especially as selection bias means they will all be well above average in popularity.

Tier 2 Partner Network - Google delegates to the channel / network / partner to verify the content. This allows major partners to post content without needing it to be google vetted. Google ties this into the royalties payment so violation of this can result in financial penalty / being kicked off. If a video is reported it is immediately marked for vetting.

Tier 3 - Unverified. This is where majority of new content goes. There are plenty of brands that are less concerned about being associated with the random mix. As the general quality will be down the ad price will likely be lower, but these are the

Tier 4 - Unsuitable for major brands. This is for any content that has been vetted and is ok as far as Youtube's TOC, but inappropriate for major brand advertising. This will likely not generate a large amount of ad revenue, however being marked as a tier 4 video means you will not earn much, so it won't be produced by ad supported content producers. If this content is appropriately tagged you might be able to sell the ads to the opposing view. This pro-life vs pro-choice. The main reason this tier exists is to protect the dollars from Tier 1 & 2.

The vetting system could even have certain tags to mark content of certain types. I.e. you could allow a brand to not advertise against political material, however you would charge more for the placement of more targeted ads.

The system will push the vetting onto content producers while maintaining a pretty big (financial) stick to keep them in line.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#103

Post by abeyer »

angry-hacker wrote: post #61

Why are brands so scared of where their ads appear? Does it really matter? Are they measuring it? I swear there are ads left and right on every rap video that talks about killing others, snorting cocaine and snagging women. Why they want their ads appear there but no next to some lunatic creating conspiracy theory videos or whatever the hate speech videos mean. Can't they just opt out of those categories?

> I swear there are ads left and right on every rap video that talks about killing others, snorting cocaine and snagging women. Why they want their ads appear there but no next to some lunatic creating conspiracy theory videos or whatever the hate speech videos mean.

Because pop culture sells, even the bad parts of it. (especially the bad parts of it when the bad parts are sex, drugs, and violence)

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#104

Post by terravion »

Do we really trust the purveyors of traditional advertising (newspapers, television news, etc.) to be without bias or vendetta when reporting on this problem? It seems to be part of a larger pattern--at least as much of a pattern as the fact that there is trash on YouTube. Military History Visualized's "Economic Warfare? PewDiePie vs. WSJ #YouTube" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewLtRGh2IvM a very intriguing take on what's happening.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#105

Post by chii »

phaed wrote: post #100
mdorazio wrote: post #17

I feel like the author of this article is missing the reasons behind the rise of adtech in the first place, and doesn't really address how traditional advertising can compensate. There are at least three forces at work here: 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your au…

> 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your audience won't ever see those ads in the first place. If Netflix was free but with ads (with ad-less subscriptions optional) their viewership and subscriptions would skyrocket, and end up supporting traditional advertising on…

If Netflix turning free would produce the kind of business or revenue that you imply, why haven't they started doing it?

I think the appeal of Netflix is that they aren't beholden to advertisers.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#106

Post by abeyer »

mschuster91 wrote: post #29
elsewhen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the is another space where ads are going to appear: in content... I am not talking about being blended into the content itself. Think paid placements in movies. podcast/youtube sponsorships etc.

> Think paid placements in movies. podcast/youtube sponsorships etc. Well, product placement in movies is well known. Nearly everyone should know that companies pay millions of dollars to e.g. have James Bond drive their car. What is way more evil is that what is called "influencer marketing", which you are addressing in your last part. It's especially evil because the target group for "influencers" is usually little…

I'm curious how effective this law is. What is the threshold for "not hiding commercial purpose"? It doesn't seem like a very high one from that translation (though that could just be a language thing.)

Especially when you consider targeting kids, is the result of this law actually effective in making it clear to them that something is an advertisement?

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#107

Post by jjeaff »

terravion wrote: post #104

Do we really trust the purveyors of traditional advertising (newspapers, television news, etc.) to be without bias or vendetta when reporting on this problem? It seems to be part of a larger pattern--at least as much of a pattern as the fact that there is trash on YouTube. Military History Visualized's "Economic Warfare? PewDiePie vs. WSJ #YouTube" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewLtRGh2IvM a very intriguing take on…

And now evidence the the WSJ faked snapshots of videos to prove that ads were showing on offensive content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM49MmzrCNc

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#108

Post by generic_user »

cavisne wrote: post #90

"news about it is coming hard and fast" The difference with this story is its being driven by the media organizations, not by "news" - any actual issue or event. There is an obvious motivation here, the mainstream media organizations see this as a way to concentrate advertising dollars back to them, and they will paint any major brand that doesn't do so as supporting ISIS/Nazi's. Google is in a dangerous position her…

The people who are making these decisions are precisely the billionaire one percent that has had there agenda disrupted because people are getting information from alternative media that challenges the narrative of the mainstream corporate press.

They would love to get back to the days when they could just throw crap over the wall onto the TV and people had not other sources of information or any way to collectively discuss its validity.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#109

Post by jonstokes »

I don't know what Searles is smoking (ok, actually, I do -- it's a strong mix called "Remember When..."), but big, battleship "trusted" brands cheat at digital in ways that are every bit as sleazy as adtech. The big guys game the system and rip off sponsors by buying fake traffic and fake engagements to inflate their campaign metrics and suck more money from advertisers.

So yeah, everything that he says about how bad adtech is is true, but the idea that if everyone would just go back to doing big branding-oriented media buys on "trusted sites" then the fraud would magically disappear -- that's nonsense on stilts.

Re: Brands need to fire adtech

#110

Post by njharman »

phaed wrote: post #100
mdorazio wrote: post #17

I feel like the author of this article is missing the reasons behind the rise of adtech in the first place, and doesn't really address how traditional advertising can compensate. There are at least three forces at work here: 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your au…

> 1) People straight up don't want to see ads. Ad blockers, Netflix, etc. are a natural response to this. If your medium relies on traditional ads, there's an increasingly large chance that your audience won't ever see those ads in the first place. If Netflix was free but with ads (with ad-less subscriptions optional) their viewership and subscriptions would skyrocket, and end up supporting traditional advertising on…

Free but with ads is Hulu. Netflix crushes Hulu. Netflix is massive for three reasons. Original content, binge watch/no schedule, no adverts.
Post reply on HN