Forget the Google scandal, online advertising is corrupt at its core
Advertising and marketing people are generally hard-working people with worthwhile motives, but we have been sleepwalking into a landscape of deviousness and deceit advanced by a tech culture which has embraced – let’s not kid ourselves – an ethos of malleable ethics, argues Bob Hoffman
Let’s forget for a minute about the growing Google scandal.
Let’s forget the kickback scandal unearthed in the United States by the Association of National Advertisers.
Instead, let’s go back to first principles and focus on the nature of online advertising, and why – at its core – it has become a corrupt and dangerous thing.
It all started with a big fantasy. The fantasy was this – people would want to interact with online advertising.
Google, Facebook, Ebay, Amazon (the newer school) have smashed the old school. The old school are making the most noise at the moment.
#stopfundinghate
Hilarious how the Daily Mail and Murdoch press are squawking – pot calling kettle black?
Google, Facebook et al need to act like publishers. They will and when they do they will be far more responsible than many old school publishers, without a doubt.
As for ad agencies, telling their clients to be careful. Are you kidding me?! Ad agencies loved the old days. Booking big ad’s, on traditional channels and taking a massive cut, oh and the perks: the Olympics, World cup soccer, the cricket, the tennis, F1; you name it – they were all there, courtesy of whoever had the tv rights and, of course, the agency spent with them BIG.
Savvy clients work directly with new media and learn loads as a result and are far closer to the ROI – this is a fact.
Many loud voices at the moment are the ones that Google, FB et al have disrupted – fancy that?
Google and Facebook and the rest will tighten up, without doubt. Did it a get a little out of control? Quite possibly? Tightening up, they sure will be. Then the old guard will, once again, have nothing left to go at them with and will probably vanish. User first wins, always has and always will. For clients and for users, not for greedy third parties though.
You saved me writing all that. I suspect the age of author has a lot to do with his world view. Fact is, if you’re ONLY ‘advertising’ online and not creating any value for your audience then it’s your strategy that’s broken not the platforms. Not a wonder ad land is pissed, they’re ads don’t work anymore and now.there’s data that proved it.
You really think a billboard next to a highway somehow works better than a banner ad next to an article?
@Boom
I read this article and honestly exclaimed: ‘Are you fckn kidding me!?’; the audacity of it! The article even quotes the ever so responsible and impartial (not) ‘Wall St Journal’ (published by Murdoch of course). Oh deary me? He talks about clickbait too. Seriously?! Where is his finger pointing at News and The Mail? Clickbait:- that is their specialty.
This article is one sided and about as credible as the author.
They’re….they are….there…their? Missed out literacy class huh?
@Tony
Please do excuse my grammar dear Tony. I have to admit that the quality of spelling and grammar is far better in the comments section of The Guardian verses the comments section of The Australian.
Good day!
Looks like Bob ran two agencies back in the good old days. And now he’s crying fowl of the wide choice clients have, which they evaluate against achievement of objectives. You, internet user, have made several good points well. I suggest you write a column for Mumbrella, reflecting the reality of the .
I’ve never clicked on a banner… ever.
Have you?
Yeah. When they load last on a page. And you accidentally click them.
Have you ever clicked on a billboard? The fact you see it (banner) is where a lot of the value lies.
Is Jörn the former acting head of comms for Facebook Australia?
What a shock! How dare free websites make money?
Any devious actions by online is only being mirrored in the offline world. Magazines, radio, newspapers and TV have advertorials that are thinly disguised ads also. Watch morning TV (probably the worst perpetrator) and it’s hard to tell what is advertising and what isnt. Not to mention product placement in films. They are not even called out in any sense.
Anyway this article itself (and the headline) are clickbait which is ironic that the piece calls that practice out as the problem.
Some valid points Bob, unfortunately, lost in the hyperbole of your firmly formed personal opinions.
You can’t wrap up that the evolution of digital advertising is the reason for “malleable ethics” I know for a fact they were far more malleable in the 70s, 80s and 90s – just less transparent.
Perhaps people just prefer to educate themselves on things like “sponsored content” as opposed to putting up with
“annoying, stupid and tiresome ads” in traditional media.
Cheers, Nicky
I would hate to have the sales manager role for YouTube right now. The worse job in the industry.
Good luck to them and here’s hoping there’s a light at the end of an advertiser free YouTube.
Mind you. Ad’s on YouTube was always going to be a risky venture. Can’t say we all didn’t see it coming….
Worst*
Meanwhile The Mail are up to their usual sinister tricks: http://honey.nine.com.au/2017/.....er-outrage
Be sure to boycott them clients!
Dan Monheit sums it up beautifully in his article https://mumbrella.com.au/facebook-marketing-433157
The ad industry of Bob’s generation sowed the seeds of post-truth a long time ago. Enjoy the spoils of your hard work Bob & co!
Shame on you Bob. How dare you say that digital advertising is any worse than the past! Just because we can see the fraud and deception much more clearly now doesn’t mean you have to call it out for what it is? I agree with all these fine modern and younger thinkers who have so far universally dissed you. Just leave digital media alone will you. It’s OK to be corrupt because media has always been corrupt. Power to new media! (and old media…so long as they were trying to fool clients and consumers like the Googles of the world are doing so spectacularly well today). That’s how we roll.
Funny we only read his views online…
Integration departments at TV networks, radio networks, and publishers have been dressing ads up as content for years Bob – definitely not your strongest point….
…at “There are two ways online publishers make money – traffic and clicks.” (ever heard of transactional, affiliate or subscription models?) but I plowed on nonetheless. Until you started on what are known as native (fyi) ads. As you point out it does say sponsored, simple, and that’s a fair value exchange between the publisher’s requirement to make money and the consumer’s desire for “free” content.
By your logic shouldn’t it clearly say sponsored when someone from Totes Amaze Sofas is walking across camera during an episode of Bogan Reno Miracles wearing a fluro vest blasting their brand at me whilst tripping over thirty cans of Dulux (or is it Taubman’s?…doesn’t matter, I’ll choose the cheapest at the shop…) paint?
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/i.....47/297.png
the only justifiable response
This may be the best comment I’ve seen on Mumbrella
That comment was truly amazing. Bravo!
The FB phoney testimonials ad seems a valid point.
The meteor is still coming Bob.
What zealots you all are.Why not put your blind avidity to better use..like Scientology?