The 'Brand Safety' and 'Suitability' industries have financially crushed the news business by keeping ads away from articles that its 'sentiment analysis' algorithms think will make people sad or upset.

Advertisers Don’t Want Sites Like Jezebel to Exist::The ‘Brand Safety’ and ‘Suitability’ industries have financially crushed the news business by keeping ads away from articles that its ‘sentiment analysis’ algorithms think will make people sad or upset.

  • Red_October@lemmy.worldEnglish
    414·
    1 year ago

    No, Advertisers don’t give half a shit if sites like Jezebel Exist, existence one way or another doesn’t matter to them. They just don’t want to advertise there.

    You don’t get to push an image of your brand being edgy and saying the things “mainstream media” won’t say, and bitch about how brands don’t want their names associated with you. If you want to be edgy and extreme and controversial, fine, we won’t stop you Just don’t act surprised when companies don’t want to see a screenshot of their logo on the same page as a headline that you’ve styled as too edgy for popular media.

    • treadful@lemmy.zipEnglish
      71·
      1 year ago

      Generally agree. Though I’m not inclined to apply labels like “edgy” as if that’s accurate (or a negative thing). Covering tough topics is important. So are opinion pieces about it. That said…

      “It’s lamentable but not surprising that Jezebel shut down because they covered provocative topics, topics that the electorate needed to be informed about and topics that people care about and that attract interest,” he added. “But advertisers are abdicating their responsibility to support news out of an unfounded fear that they might harm themselves.”

      Suggesting it’s the responsibility of the advertisers to prop up news is wild. These two things should have been divorced years ago. I don’t know what the proper model is for sustainability of independent journalism, but the advertising model has always been one with acute influence problems.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      31·
      1 year ago

      Funny it doesn’t go both ways. Blue-chip companies are glad to rainbow up in June even if they show a history of underemploying LGBT folk and failing to acknowledge gay families. Heck, some of them support anti-LGBT activist groups while still flying rainbws.

      I suspected it was about silencing Jezebel even though they are way less radical than the far-right interests they regard as stil brand safe… or are glad to support until the public notices.

      • Red_October@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        1 year ago

        It does go both ways, you’re just selectively ignoring it. Look at what happened to Bud Light, consumption is down and countless endorsements severed, because the company presented a message and an image that certain people didn’t like. The result is the same, if you present an image that people or companies don’t want to be associated with, they’re allowed to not associate with it.

        It’s not even a question of being glad to support it until the public notices. Companies were probably glad to get the advertising until THEY noticed it, or until someone pointed out to them just what they were sharing a page with. Most big businesses, especially those going through a third party advertising company, couldn’t tell you where their ads will appear. Until it’s brought to their attention, they may not even know.

        And again, nobody gave half a shit about silencing Jezebel, nobody went out of their way to punish or suppress them, all they did is just not give them money. Not giving someone money isn’t the same thing as silencing someone.