Thread by @nandoodles, Last week, I had a spontaneous chat with a C-suite exec at [...]

Last week, I had a spontaneous chat with a C-suite exec at one of the major ad verification companies blocking ad $$ to the news industry:

Here are a few highlights from the conversation

:

I asked (paraphrased): “Layoffs are happening NOW. What are you doing to get ad $$ to local newsrooms?”

The exec replied: “We have been educating brands for months now, but it’s hard to force brands to spend on the news when they believe it will harm them.”

Me: “Want to bring me in to talk to them? Happy to.” (Shoot your shot, ladies.)

Exec: “No thanks! They’re not blocking news sites anyway. Just COVID-related keywords. We’re trying to convince them it’s ok to serve ads on then news. Just not the bad news.”

Exec (cont’d): Keyword blacklisting is bad, arcane technology. We are moving them to “true contextual understanding.” It’s simple and gets their spend back on instantly.”

Me: “OK. How does your technology work? Walk me thru how you classify content.”

Exec:

Me:

Me: Heavily about death vs. moderately about death vs. a little bit about death. WHO CARES, it’s THE NEWS.

Exec (straight faced, probably): Brands care.

Me: Ok. Can you give me an example of a brand that has suffered losses - either in terms of brand equity or revenue - as a result of an ad placement on bad/sad news?

Exec: YES, LOTS! One sec, lemme pull some up for you.

Exec [comes up empty-handed]: “Well, you know...what if you were a travel brand and your ad appeared next to an article about a plane crash?”

Me: Yes, but show me an example of that happening.

Exec: “OK, ha! Got one.”

Sends me this link to a study of how people reacted to brands that advertised on the video of a school shooting. (Not a *news article* covering a school shooting.)

I point out it’s a flawed study that proves nothing. https://marketingland.com/study-confirms-brands-worst-fears-about-unsafe-content-250650

Study confirms brands' worst fears about unsafe content - Marketing Land

Ads placed in front of or beside unsafe content triggered a range of negative consumer reactions.

https://marketingland.com/study-confirms-brands-worst-fears-about-unsafe-content-250650

Then it just devolves. Exec accuses me of calling “fake news” on a research study.

Then subtly tries turning the tables on me: “There would certainly be no conversions on a school shooting article!”

Probably not. But what does that have to do with *brand safety*?

Exec [continues to go off track and even gets bizarrely personal]: “You obviously have no empathy for marketers who are concerned about their brands. This is what they believe!”

Me:

Exec:

Well, this [completely bullshit unicorn poop fantasy] is what my customers believe.

Me:

Exec: Well, this [completely bullshit unicorn poop fantasy] is what my customers believe.Me:

Curious who I was talking to? It doesn’t matter.

All the major ad tech players involved in the news blacklisting scandal are moving in lockstep to sell more deluded brand safety tech that simultaneously does NOT solve the news crisis.

They all sound like this:

To re-iterate, the best place to be advertising right now is the news. The good, the sad, the bad. All of it.

The only people who think “sentiment analysis” matters are the ones who are selling it for big $$$.

Learn more: https://branded.substack.com/p/good-news-you-can-advertise-on-bad

Good news: You can advertise on bad news (it's brand safe)

Sleeping Giants will not come after you, we promise.

https://branded.substack.com/p/good-news-you-can-advertise-on-bad

Latest Threads Unrolled: