Features
Ad Networks Promoting Porn, Part 2
Adotas published an interesting opinion piece last week, where it was revealed that several networks were, unbeknownst to them, finding their tags on sites with questionable content. This generated an enormous amount of interest from the media buying community, with many leaving responses on why they are not buying on blind buy networks, and why many of them don’t buy on networks at all.
While some readers felt that this was a free-speech issue, most who left comments seemed to get the point: advertisers and media buyers desire to ensure that their advertising is on the type of sites that they select. They do not want to hurt their brand by finding it associated with pornography, “warez” or hate-speech. Many companies have worked very hard (or spent a lot of money on advertising) to protect their brand. One poorly chosen placement next to a pornographic video could end up on the front page of the New York Post, exclaiming that “Company XYZ Advertises on Pornography,” and their brand could suffer a major hit.
Many networks have a real problem with quality control. As one friend from a major network (who wished to remain nameless) told me on AIM, “there is so much traffic made from some of these sites that if we don’t include them in our network, someone else will.” Every day new networks seem to be popping up as the technology becomes cheaper and the temptation (for lack of a better word) to place tags on “questionable” content becomes stronger. The equation is simple: the more traffic you have, the more money you are going to make.
While there is no sure fire way to prevent this from happening, there are steps that media buyers and advertising networks can do to prevent a major disaster for their brand, or bad PR for their Network.
1) Technology
As the interactive advertising community becomes more and more sophisticated, so does the technology. Several companies have generated technology to help
- I/PRO has BRANDSENSE, which is a third party verification tool that allows blind buys to be “audited” for content. This creates a “BRANDSENSE Certified Network” of sites that any advertiser can be confident has gone through a stringent process. No word on how many networks, if any, have already gone through this process, but it seems like a great additional business model for I/PRO which has been attempting to grow their business into new realms.
- RightMedia is in the middle of developing MediaGuard, which will be a third party service that will review the placement of all advertising tag placements, and then tagging those sites as “audited’ inventory. This will ensure that advertisers who advertise on any network using the RightMedia YieldManager system will know that their advertising is kept off of “questionable” sites.
Pages: 1 2 next page »
Article Sponsor
More Features
Reader Comments.
From experience, this is why we do not buy on networks as much as I would personally want to be. I am one of those media buyers who has bought on a major network only to find my premium advertiser on a semi-pornographic site, despite a contractual obligation which prohibited this…
Liked both pieces, good work. I do have one problem, though…Ending the second piece that Tribal Fusion has quality control measures in place contradicts that fact that Hollywood Tuna is a Tribal Fusion site (a website you pointed out in the first article as having questionable content).
This article, like the original story, treats advertising on a network as a branding exercise and raises the specter of a brand being damaged by appearing next to content that an advertiser finds inappropriate. It also assumes that brand managers or their agencies blithely place buys with networks without any idea of where the campaigns appear.
Let me assure you from a publisher’s point of view, true brand campaigns delivered by networks are few and far between. The screen shot in your previous article showed creative for The New York Times and Cupid Junction. What do these seemingly diverse advertisers have in common? The answer is they both have the oldest direct marketing campaigns on the net. They are measured by a single metric and that’s conversion. Like it or not it’s all about eyeballs.
In the latest issue of OMMA the top ten networks are listed. Fastclick advertises 12,000 sites in their network, Tribal 900, ValueClick 6000; all ten adding up to 100 BILLION impressions per month. Seven of the ten offer CPA pricing. It’s all about eyeballs. Networks tout reach and technology and that’s what advertisers are buying.
So if that 18-34 year old male who viewed the topless video on the site you mentioned in the original article decided he couldn’t start his day without a copy of the New York Times, I sincerely doubt the Times would give a whit. Unless of course somebody plastered it across the net as promoting porn.
Blah, to Savvy.com’s comment. They are obviously defending their own content, and are not aware of the branding market. There is a reason that branded advertisers do NOT advertise frequently and the article addresses it so. If you want to look at why you can’t get them on your site, look to your attitude which basically says “we don’t expect good advertisers, so we show crap.”
Agreed, as an agency we do not do business with many networks for fear. The reason that Savvy doesnt see branded ads might have something to do with the half-naked girls on their site.
Although the quality control of many networks is extensive the reality is that in most cases it isn’t enough and can’t be. One of the best methods to ensure high quality is to have a personal relationship with publishers that allows education and cooperation to pass back and forth. This ensures that publishers not only willingly comply with expectations but that they understand the reasoning and the implications of why these expectations are in place.
My article has nothing to do with specific sites, or talking about Savvy.com, which is not mentioned in the article. I personally think Savvy is a great example of a men’s website done with a little fun and tasteful photos.
The article is about advertiser control — and why networks are having problems working with agencies.
I remain rigidly focused on the subject of porn and ad networks. The one, two three aproach outlined in your article makes perfect sense. Thank you for an eye-opening series. I thought I would miss adbumb and new media but this site is rocking!
The only way to ensure complete control is to have a direct relationship with the publisher. If you are unable to do that, either choose not to work with networks or work with them to protect your brand and control your risk. If you’re an ROI driven advertiser (branded or nonbranded), it’s difficult not to work with networks. Agencies should engage in the conversations rather than avoiding it entirely. The ‘this is why I don’t buy networks’ is short sighted. Some networks are good at protecting their advertisers, some are not.
There are a number of tools being developed by networks that will aid in this control. Those that do it effectively will win your trust and business. Do your due diligence, ask the tough questions and networks can be a tremendous partner in your marketing.
btw…this article is vastly better written than the original.
- Pingback from Adotas » Lenny Kravits Pushes Drugs in Rich Media?
Hi! Good work. By the way, look my site too
http://us-airway-reservation.34www.com
Best regards. GOOD LUCK.
- Pingback from Right Media Blog » Blog Archive » Media Guard in Adotas
I still don’t see what advertisers have against adult content. Do you really think being seen with porn is bad publicity? The only people who will see ads on a porn site, are the perverts seeing the porn site — and they like it. If you “end up on the front page of the New York Post” then you’ve just got a lot of free publicity.
Would YOU really not buy from a company because they advertise on porn?
Surprisingly i have seen more comments on this article than on any other
Sex sells and boy does it attract the male eyes. (notice almost all comments are posted by men 
Just to add
Most porn have images that show women in compromising situations or being objectified and in servitude to men (whether you get turned on by that is besides the point)
But as a woman, I would most definately not have any positive associations with the brand that is using such a site. End result? You lose my vote which means you lose my money. Not good advertising, in my opinion.
To address the question of whats wrong with porn? Nothing if the subjects (actors or whatever you want to call them) are not coerced or forced into it. Well that is not always the case. Countries like Thailand, India amongst others have prostitution/porn rings that force women to engage in porn against their wishes. (you can research that-they are known as Blue movies in India)
So no-my dollar would definately not be going to the advertiser who shows up on a porn site. All in all, negative return on ad dollars.
Google Adwords is also sometimes Promoting Porn
This is a great article. Very informative. I have been to a lot of websites that have ads that seem to be clearly misplaced.
But you know what.. the ads are ofter there because they are profitable. Its not even time that people are caught off guard.
There is an alternative to the blind ad network which is a firm offering more of a site representation model with complete transparency and the ability for the media buyer or client to pick and choose the sites they want to run on. In the Health and Medical category this is a must and that’s how Good Health Advertising operates. We represent a collection of high quality health and medical sites and the buyers can cherry-pick to their hearts content. We’re the un-network.
Robert Kadar
Good Health Advertising
www.GoodHealthAdvertising.com
Leave a Comment
Features
- SEO Doesn’t Have To Garner JUNK Leads May 8th 2008
- Don’t Let Consumers Run YOUR Campaign May 7th 2008
- Social Networking: More Than Pokes and Games May 6th 2008
- What’s Next: Microol? MiSpace? MiClick? May 6th 2008
- Is Microsoft On the Road to Nowhere? May 5th 2008
Latest News
- Google To Ditch Yahoo in Wake of Microhoo Flop May 8th 2008
- Increasingly Desperate Microsoft Courts Facebook May 8th 2008
- NBC Launches Platform To Target Big Spenders May 8th 2008
- DG Fast Channel, Enliven Get Hitched May 8th 2008
- More Eyeballs on MySpace, Ad Revenue Still Weak May 8th 2008
- Giant Realm Raises $2 Million May 8th 2008
- Microhoo is Dead: Will Yang Hang Too? May 7th 2008
- Brave New Wireless World Dawns May 7th 2008
Spotlight
AdBrite’s CEO On Creating a Transparent Ad MarketplaceADOTAS EXCLUSIVE – AdBrite bills itself as the Internet’s Ad Marketplace – it also places a high premium on transparency, [...] more...
Reader Favorites
Classifieds
Most Commented
- MySpace Isn't for Advertisers, It's for Sex (62)
- BlogBurst Offers Content Sharing Network (31)
- Google AdWords Unveils Two New Image Sizes (27)
- Microsoft Sues Cybersquatters (25)
- Sexy Girls Get You Fraudulent Clicks. (22)
- Go Away, Pixel Pages! (19)
- Ad Networks Promoting Porn, Part 2 (18)
- Gaucheness in Online Gaming: Finding Both Harassment and Hope on the Xbox Live (14)
