Read on Twitter
1 - Lots of chat at the moment on keyword/content blocking by digital advertisers and the likes of @integralads @doubleverify killing news publishers. My two cents - the problem goes a lot deeper - a thread:
2 - First off, a free and independent press is vital to democracy and must be supported by advertising. We cannot get to the point where paywalls are required to access vital information and non-biased/partisan viewpoints
3 - Rightly or wrongly however, the view of the press is that it is increasing tied up with politics and in some cases viewed as partisan. (Look at the replies from both the left and right on @BBCBreakfast @mrdanwalker's timeline after any political interview)
4 - I can understand advertisers reticence to appear (or to be seem to be favouring by blocking certain publications) alongside content either aligning with or against the views of their customers, especially in today's "cancel culture"
5 - (these observations are based on spending too much time reading rants on Twitter and having to navigate such decisions alongside clients in my own time as an ad campaign manager)
6 - Getting to the root of the problem we're seeing now: In the past few years @Google, @Facebook, @Twitter et al have not done anywhere near enough to combat the spread of poor quality, click bait content or advertising and more importantly fake news
7 - Of course, this has all been generating revenue for the ad networks, so hardly surprising. But, what it has led to, is the larger, more reputable publishers being forced to compete with this content - and in some cases stoop to this level
8 - Not to tar all with the same brush, as some are still providing quality, neutral and informative content (and some never did) - but the perception of advertisers and consumers is key
9 - And what we're now seeing due to this is advertisers moving away from big publishers into the black hole of the programmatic open exchange, where they are more likely to fund fake news/poor quality sites as the networks don't properly vet (or care) what they allow here
10 - This in turn sees the cost of advertising on a large national publication fall and allows ads for the sh*tty sites down the bottom of the exchanges/networks and worse, bad actors with malware infested ads, to appear in ad slots where a lot of user attention is now focused
11 - And so the cycle continues, and who wins? News publishers lose income and see a load of sh*tty ads appear on their homepage as less big advertisers want the space, the advertisers fall victim to poor quality and higher fraud away from big pubs and users get bad experiences
12 - Ad networks knowingly profiting from misleading and click baity ads are still making their cut and the spreaders of inaccuracies and conspiracies get a bigger audience and can then further monetise their content
13 - Social media companies must control the spread of false content on their platforms (instead of amplifying it in the search for "attention" to sell to advertisers) @Facebook @Twitter
14 - Ad networks and programmatic exchanges MUST stop chasing $$ and allowing anyone with a website and credit card to sign up and buy/sell ads without proper vetting. So many problems could be cut off at source and the whole industry (and wider public) would benefit
Some (probably slightly nonsensical) ramblings and frustrations in there, but as an industry we have to do better, especially in times like this. Would love your thoughts @jason_kint @acfou
