How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
parkerhiggins.net
How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
1–10 of 51 posts
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#2On the news site I occasionally read there was an ad of an insurance company near the article on this tragedy. Not great.
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#3It's more that advertisers don't want their brand to be associated with negative emotion readers get while reading about tragedy.
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#4> it’s almost an acknowledgement that ads are invasive and uncomfortable. They cross over into the intolerable range when we’re emotionally vulnerable from a tragic story.
Is it really this, or is it that advertisers don't want their brand associated with negativity in general?
How they're doing it is interesting, but I think the analysis is weird.
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#5The Failbook page loves to collect examples of inappropriate automated ad placements: http://failblog.cheezburger.com/failbook/tag/juxtaposition
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#6[deleted]
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#7A new avenue for ethical cross-site scripting.
I did not know about this particular keyword sensitivity google mail: http://boingboing.net/2009/07/31/how-to-avoid-ads-in.html
Maybe everybody should add "I'm sorry for your loss of ads" to their email signature?
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#8A new avenue for ethical cross-site scripting. I did not know about this particular keyword sensitivity google mail: http://boingboing.net/2009/07/31/how-to-avoid-ads-in.html Maybe everybody should add "I'm sorry for your loss of ads" to their email signature?
Apparently doesn't work if the words are just in your signature.
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#9> it’s almost an acknowledgement that ads are invasive and uncomfortable. They cross over into the intolerable range when we’re emotionally vulnerable from a tragic story. Is it really this, or is it that advertisers don't want their brand associated with negativity in general? How they're doing it is interesting, but I think the analysis is weird.
How may articles are actually positive in a newspaper?
IMO advertisers understand that contents making people angry (like politics, mostly) or sad will drive most of the page views, and are OK with some level of negativity. Tragedies directly affecting their potential customers is just a bridge too far.
For comparison, discussion on afghanistan and air strikes is OK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/world/asia/ashraf-ghani-of...
Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free
#10> it’s almost an acknowledgement that ads are invasive and uncomfortable. They cross over into the intolerable range when we’re emotionally vulnerable from a tragic story. Is it really this, or is it that advertisers don't want their brand associated with negativity in general? How they're doing it is interesting, but I think the analysis is weird.
Seconded. There is no fact to support this analysis other than the author's personal opinion — though I may still agree with him, he should provide data to support his affirmation.