Google surrenders with third party verification for advertisers on YouTube but downplays exposure
Google has sought to downplay the impact of linking advertisers with offensive, racist and terrorist videos, claiming only a tiny percentage of advertiser’s inventory was screened against such content on YouTube.
Confirming the decision to allow advertisers to use third party verification, Google’s chief business officer Phillip Schindler said the exposure to such videos was not as big as advertisers feared.
“When we spoke with many of our top brand advertisers, it was clear that the videos they had flagged received less than 1/1000th of a percent of the advertisers’ total impressions,” Schindler said.
“Of course, when we find that ads mistakenly ran against content that doesn’t comply with our policies, we immediately remove those ads.”
So MRC only ? Who qualifies ?
Integral Ad Science, Doubleverify and Comscore
Quite simply, it shouldn’t have happened in the first place, nor should it ever happen again.
If they want advertisers, they need to provide a 100% brand safe place for ads to run.
Brands want to know they are safe, for sure. Why just the focus on Google though? Brands who advertise say on the News Corp or Daily Mail networks are exposing their brands to [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] and to a very aggravating, acerbic tone, everyday. Why are clients not pulling their dollars away from these platforms? Why just the focus on Google, who say that it was minimal and are tightening up their processes. Is it because clients are agencies get wined and dined and don’t want to lose the perks? This is a serious question.
No environment – traditional or digital – is 100% brand safe. I assume you are alluding that TV, Radio or Print is? Shock Jocks, Footy Show with Wally Lewis, airplane ads next to plane crash articles, Easter Show ads next to infants dying in war torn regions? These are just the handful I’ve seen/heard this week.
That and some more. A few ads got exposed to some questionable content on YouTube, which was a mistake. It is no mistake whatsoever the way News Corp and the Daily Mail operate on a daily basis and brands get displayed on these platforms. Many would say that the News Corp and Mail houses produce attack dog style ‘journalism’, which often goes against diversity, it seems to often marginalised and ostracise and ultimately help to divide our society, with an evident agenda. Why no backlash? Are agencies (3rd parties who seem to build their business models on taking cuts), in their clients’ ears because the Google’s and Facebook’s efficiency models means more bang for clients and less buck for the 3rd parties? Agreed also that agency trading desks can often seem a little grey also.
Don’t forget that a number of Media agencies have also had this happen with their programmatic (aka Profitmatic) buys too.
Not sure where this starts and ends – how will an advertiser feel running next to a story where a papparazzi is flying a drone over a celebrities backyard to get pics of them sunbaking .. or if an advertiser runs next to a story on a conviction for a rapist/murderer?
or running an advertisement on Sky News after an interview with an anti gay marriage campaigner, or Pauline Hanson … or a banner next to Rita Panahi abusing the so-called left.
Brand safety isn’t solely about knowledge of where you run – it’s also about context.
Look forward to News/Daily Mail/Nine/Seven safety precautions and exclusions around hate speech, religious content, murder/rape/assault, crime, disasters, anti Islam, hate language … which I am sure is coming right now.
Interesting to see News take the high road on their premium not user generated content line but are happy to run brand ads before and around this “professionally produced” content.
http://www.news.com.au/lifesty.....00a101b0bb
At the end of the day Youtube is a user generated environment. No amount of verification either Google or third party will provide a 100% safe environment.
To argue that the likes of News or Daily Mail have less premium content is fine, but at the end of the day it’s curated by an editorial team. Youtube simply isn’t and will never have one.
Brands need to wake up and weigh up the risks and benefits of whether it’s worth being on Youtube or can they simply find their audience elsewhere.
Finally, someone mentions the audience.
I think the real question is will the user leave YouTube and find their info/entertainment on other paltforms like News, Daily Mail etc. I think the data on that is fairly comprehensive and it’s one direction.
It’s tough finding that audience elsewhere now, just ask any TV planner. It’s going to get tougher. This means the risk/return tradeoff is also in YouTubes favour in the long run.
The only caveat is News/Daily Mail building a product for focused on attracting and audience (and not for $$$’s), and I dont see any track record of success in that.