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…

Posted by Bob | 11:54 am on February 13, 2006.

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).

Posted by Steve | 11:55 am on February 13, 2006.

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.

Posted by Chris Smith | 12:48 pm on February 13, 2006.

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.”

Posted by Adrianne | 1:05 pm on February 13, 2006.

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.

Posted by Bob | 1:42 pm on February 13, 2006.

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.

Posted by Steve Christensen | 2:23 pm on February 13, 2006.

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.

Posted by Pesach Lattin | 3:59 pm on February 13, 2006.

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!

Posted by Harry Pan | 4:11 pm on February 13, 2006.

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.

Posted by John Network | 5:31 pm on February 13, 2006.

Hi! Good work. By the way, look my site too
http://us-airway-reservation.34www.com

Best regards. GOOD LUCK.

Posted by geyka | 8:34 pm on August 30, 2006.

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?

Posted by Cstdenis | 4:38 pm on October 26, 2006.

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

Posted by Naomi | 1:10 am on August 23, 2007.

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.

Posted by Naomi | 1:22 am on August 23, 2007.

Google Adwords is also sometimes Promoting Porn

Posted by Lod | 10:53 am on November 28, 2007.

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.

Posted by Online Outlet Stores | 2:28 pm on March 13, 2008.

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
http://www.GoodHealthAdvertising.com

Posted by Robert Kadar | 3:11 pm on March 30, 2008.