Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Advertising The Media

Advertisers Expand Their Avoidance to News Sites, Blacklisting Specific Words (msn.com) 72

Posted by EditorDavid from the ads-blockers dept.
"The Washington Post's crossword puzzle was recently deemed too offensive for advertisers," reports the Wall Street Journal. "So was an article about thunderstorms. And a ranking of boxed brownie mixes.

"Marketers have long been wary about running ads in the news media, concerned that their brands will land next to pieces about terrorism or plane crashes or polarizing political stories." But "That advertising no-go zone seems to keep widening." It is a headache that news publishers can hardly afford. Many are also grappling with subscriber declines and losses in traffic from Google and other tech platforms, and are now making an aggressive push to change advertisers' perceptions... News organizations recently began publicizing studies that show it really isn't dangerous for a brand to appear near a sensitive story. At the same time, they say blunt campaign-planning tools wind up fencing off even harmless content — and those stories' potentially large audiences — from advertisements. Forty percent of the Washington Post's material is deemed "unsafe" at any given time, said Johanna Mayer-Jones, the paper's chief advertising officer, referencing a study the company did about a year ago. "The revenue implications of that are significant."

The Washington Post's crossword page was blocked by advertisers' technology seven times during a weekslong period in October because it was labeled as politics, news and natural disaster-related material. (A tech company recently said it would ensure the puzzle stops getting blocked, according to the Post.) The thunderstorm story was cut off from ad revenue when a sentence about "flashing and pealing volleys from the artillery of the atmosphere" triggered a warning that it was too much like an "arms and ammunition" story. As for the brownies, a reference to research from "grocery, drug, mass-market" and other retailers was automatically flagged by advertisers for containing the word "drug."

While some brands avoid news entirely, many take what they consider to be a more surgical approach. They create lengthy blacklists of words or websites that the company considers off-limits and employ ad technology to avoid such terms. Over time, blacklists have become extremely detailed, serving as a de facto news-blocking tool, publishers said... The lists are used in automated ad buying. Brands aim their ads not at specific websites, but at online audiences with certain characteristics — people with particular shopping or web-browsing histories, for example. Their ads are matched in real-time to available inventory for thousands of websites... These days, less than 5% of client ad spending for GroupM, one of the largest ad-buying firms in the world, goes to news, according to Christian Juhl, GroupM's former chief executive who revealed spending figures during a congressional hearing over the summer.
A recent blacklist from Microsoft included about 2,000 words including "collapse," according to the article. ("Microsoft declined to comment.")

Advertisers Expand Their Avoidance to News Sites, Blacklisting Specific Words More | Reply

Advertisers Expand Their Avoidance to News Sites, Blacklisting Specific Words

Comments Filter:

  • I want to be outraged, but (Score:5, Interesting)

    by taustin ( 171655 ) on Saturday January 04, 2025 @11:48AM (#65061651) Homepage Journal

    I just can't manage it. It's not like there are any "news" sites out there that actually publish news, and it's not like I don't tune out all advertising anyway.

    Seems like these are people who deserve each other in a hell of their own making.

    • > Seems like these are people who deserve each other in a hell of their own making.

      Shitting in our own nest seems to be a fairly normal human behavior.

    • Re:I want to be outraged, but (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Teun ( 17872 ) on Saturday January 04, 2025 @12:14PM (#65061693)

      people who deserve each other in a hell of their own making.

      Companies that deserve each other...
      A couple of years ago all major brands would take out adverts in all major papers without much care which way they were leaning but is seems the anti-social media has inflicted a lot of damage to all of us.

      • It's insanity.

        https://itconnect.uw.edu/guide... [uw.edu]

        Though sometimes it's just unintentionally downright hilarious.

        https://youtu.be/VbJr2-55MVk&t... [youtu.be]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        Companies are a figment of our collective imagination. Decisions are made by people.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's hardly a new thing. Some new newspapers got into issues when they carried ads from passenger liners, and right next to them and ad from the German admiralty warning that any and all British shipping was fair game for their U-Boats. That was 110 years ago now.

        What has changed us that a lot of news outlets are just syndicating stuff from other places, or publishing AI slop, and there are a lot more of them. Advertisers can't be bothered to check every one - the rates are too low to justify it - so they s

    • Re:I want to be outraged, but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday January 04, 2025 @12:50PM (#65061751)

      It's not like there are any "news" sites out there that actually publish news

      There are, but they're subscription-based.

      Any news site that depends on ads will publish any garbage to have eyeballs to monetize.

      Find a site you trust and pay for real journalism.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        Which is a really fascinating collision of optimizations. Advertisers want as much engagement as possible, but want to avoid controversy. I wonder if eventually we are just going to see content written by AIs to cater to both engines.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by taustin ( 171655 )

          Which is a really fascinating collision of optimizations. Advertisers want as much engagement as possible, but want to avoid controversy.

          News is the business of selling advertising, and advertising is about demographics. AARP isn't going to advertise in Teen Magazine, not matter what the content. All advertisers want their ads to be seen by potential customers, and all advertising agencies specialize in trying to figure out who those potential customers are, and how to target them. That's why "news" sites focus on stories that say things certain demographics want to hear. Faux News focuses on the whack job conservatives, and people who want

        • Followed by AI consuming the product.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        It's not like there are any "news" sites out there that actually publish news

        There are, but they're subscription-based.

        Not that I've ever seen.

        Any news site that depends on ads will publish any garbage to have eyeballs to monetize.

        If you believe there is a single site out there, subscription or otherwise, that doesn't sell demographic data to advertisers (and likely making more from that than from subscriptions), even if they aren't running ads (and most subscription sites these days do, in fact, include ads), then you're . . . the ideal subscriber, doubly profitable.

        Find a site you trust and pay for real journalism.

        The impossible part being finding a site I trust. There aren't any.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        It's not like there are any "news" sites out there that actually publish news

        There are, but they're subscription-based.

        Any news site that depends on ads will publish any garbage to have eyeballs to monetize.

        Find a site you trust and pay for real journalism.

        Looks at the BBC... Looks at your comment, looks at the BBC again... Blinks...

        The over-commercialisation of journalism is the reason we're in this mess. As much as I'd love to lay all the blame on Murdoch, it goes all the way back to Hurst (if not earlier) but Murdoch is definitely the worst offender.

        If anything the financial incentive needs to be removed from journalism.

        I once worked with someone who went from being a journalist to marketing (ugh, corporate communications, sorry Marie) and she sai

  • Advertisers = cowards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xack ( 5304745 ) on Saturday January 04, 2025 @12:07PM (#65061681)
    If a brand is too scared to not be advertised against a snowflake word, then they are not worth giving them your money.

    • Or you could just tell them that they have no say in where the ads appears.

      If they decide to not put in ads then there are those that will. Next to a crossword an ad for Smith&Wesson, next to a terrorist news a recruitment ad for the army.

      It could be a temporary dip, but they'll be back when they discover that they end up not being seen.

      • they'll be back when they discover that they end up not being seen.

        That only works if you're a monopoly. Otherwise, they place ads with your competitor.

        • Everyone is a tiny monopoly for this purpose. If someone wants something posted on Slashdot, they can't substitute it with something posted on Twitter.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Next to a crossword an ad for Smith&Wesson, next to a terrorist news a recruitment ad for the army.

        An article about George H.W. Bush, an ad featuring Joe Isuzu [wikipedia.org]. I saw that one. Both were wearing cowboy hats. Coincidence or editorial comment?

        Next to a crossword an ad for Smith&Wesson

        I don't understand the problem. I know a few people from Mensa. They love crosswords puzzles. And are perhaps the most pro-2A, gun loving bunch I've ever met.

      • ...a recruitment ad for the army.

        Why just the Army? Why not have recruitment ads for all six branches? To be fair, rotate through them in a random order, changing the order on a daily basis.

    • No, the advertisers are not cowards. The problem, per TFS, is that the (simplistic) screening algorithm produces too many false positives.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      If a brand is too scared to not be advertised against a snowflake word, then they are not worth giving them your money.

      The way the world is, any word is a snowflake word.

      Some topics are contentious, like abortion, gun control, etc. Other topics are rather horrifying, like school shootings and mass murders. And some, are just snowflakes. Things like equality, diversity, inclusion are snowflake words of the conservatives. Might also mean any ad that appears too close to any article promoting anything other th

  • There are ads on websites?
    Who knew?
    I never see any.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Same here. Seems we have people that get their time and attention stolen, and others that do not. Well. Some people can manage their lives, others cannot.

  • Seems the marketers are just trying to justify their salary with more elaborate, but useless busy work.

  • It doesn't work and customers hate it.
    We need to find a better alternative.
    When I'm in the market for a product or service, I want all suppliers to show me their stuff.
    When I decide to buy or not buy, I want the pitches to stop.
    When I have no interest in a product or service, seeing an ad for it simply wastes my time and annoys me, especially if it's endlessly repeated.

    • >It doesn't work and customers hate it.

      It does work, people can be conditioned. It works on the same principles as propaganda. You get that idea into people's heads and keep pushing it until they accept it as truth.

      It does not work on everyone, every time, but it works enough to convince people it works even better than it does, in more circumstances than it does, and that it is worth more than it should be.

      • And its multi generational conditioning at this point. John Deere and CAT Tractor toys, coca-cola, McDonalds toys, are what first comes to mind. https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2... [unsw.edu.au]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        It does not work on everyone, every time,

        True. I just wonder about the wisdom of targeting a demographic that isn't smart enough to spot manipulation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by iNaya ( 1049686 )
          0% of people are smart enough to spot manipulation all the time

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            That number is meaningless. 0% of people are capable of doing anything with perfect accuracy all the time.

            The actual problem is that only about 20% or so of all people mostly spot when they are being manipulated, if the manipulation is done competently. And even less can fact-check when they notice something is off.

        • > I just wonder about the wisdom of targeting a demographic that isn't smart enough to spot manipulation.

          Oh, you mean 'suckers'. Yeah, why on earth would you target gullible people when you're trying to convince them to give you money?

          There's a reason the 419 scam is ridiculous both in concept and execution - it filters out the people who would waste your time because it's too much work to con them.

          However, I'm pretty sure the idea with advertising is to convince everyone... it just fails at that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          That "demographic" is something like 80 of the population.

          Wisdom involved? None. This is pure, if low-key, evil.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Probably. Would explain why I get zero pushback for my ad-blocking. If most people do not manage to block ads and ads actually works on them, then the rest is a lost cause anyways and it makes no sense pushing them to see ads. And even a fully ad-blocked site visit is still better than no site visit.

    • It doesn't work and customers hate it.

      Companies spend billions on advertising and track the results with landing pages, market segmentation, A/B testing, and other measurements.

      You are delusional if you think advertising doesn't work.

      • This. And you can bet that advertisers want to be sure their ad money is well-spent. Hence the algorithms that determine ad-placement -- some of which don't work too well, per TFS.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Well. The metrics usually used are "brand recognition", where "I fucking hate these assholes and will never buy anything from them" counts as a positive. And "engagement time", where "why can I not find anything on this crappy website, this takes forever" also counting as a positive.

        The ad-industry is mainly successful in selling ads, not in selling the products of their customers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Same here. Occasionally, if an ad is not blocked and keeps getting on my nerves, I make a special point to _not_ buy from these assholes. Most ads are blocked out of the box for me (Vivaldi) and for this nice site here I have moved to brave browser (also blocks /. ads out of the box).

    • Funny story, I like you disdain targeted advertising and actually find it creepy, to the point I'll often make a mental note to not buy from the advertiser. Ad's have very little effect on me, when I want something, I look around at options and buy what I think is the best price/performance, which sounds similar to your approach. However, a good friend I often refer to as a "marketeers wet dream" views ads as helpful, because the advertiser is guiding them to what they should buy. Creepy eh? He loves the a

  • that pr0n sites are not the only ones suffering from advertisers' snowflakeness.

  • Consumers need to be forewarned before endorsing widespread corporate censorship and cowardice. No company should be able to manipulate media and then hide from the consequences of everyone knowing they are gutless to the bone.

    • Companies can decide where -- and where not -- to run their ads. That's their First Amendment right, not censorship.

      Of course, not buying from those companies because of what you think of their ad policy is your First Amendment right.

  • > A recent blacklist from Microsoft included about 2,000 words including "collapse," according to the article. ("Microsoft declined to comment.")

    Windows 11 audio glitch unexpectedly cranks system volume to 100% [pcworld.com]

  • Headline should surely read deny-list? (Score:5, Funny)

    by AndyCater ( 726464 ) <amacater@@@gmail...com> on Saturday January 04, 2025 @12:55PM (#65061765) Journal

    Shouldn't the headline at least read deny-list rather than blacklist?

  • Good! (Score:2)

    by allo ( 1728082 )

    Let's include words like "collapse" into the comments so we get less ads.

  • Is there pudding? Is there any proof that ads even directly result in more sales?

  • So the problem is their system (Score:3)

    by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Saturday January 04, 2025 @02:03PM (#65061907) Homepage
    Blocking simple regularly used words is getting really ridiculous. This just shows how even more awful these advertising systems are, apart from flooding us with crappy advertisements. Those systems should change, not the content it wants to show their crap next to. It's just like the comment section on sites like engadget which blocks a lot of normal words so you can hardly post a decent comment without having to figure out which word is causing the problem.

    • We've been diluting language for a fairly long time at this point at the whim of companies with money, or at the whim of the outrage brigade. If someone doesn't like a word, for any reason, it's deemed unacceptable and people are literally written off as unacceptable to interact with society if they dare slip up and use that word. It's manipulation used to prevent actual communication from taking place, and we're all letting it happen because we can't fight the tide of ever increasing vitriol about commonly

  • This means in the long term that stories that are deemed too offensive to the advertisers will be less likely to be published. This is capitalism at work. Perhaps negative stories about climate change are next?

  • Failing utterly.

    Advertising is poison.

    News reporting is poison.

    Slashdot readers are poison.

    To hell with all of you.

  • Injecting browser extension? (Score:3)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Saturday January 04, 2025 @07:35PM (#65062521)

    Does it mean that it'd be sufficient to create a simple browser extension that injects blacklisted words into every page and I would see any ads anywhere, or at least reduce their amount?

  • So journalists and editors (AI editors) will be editing articles to make them more advertising-friendly (Advertising Engine Optimization)?

    And the whole language will degrade to what advertisers like to see. English -> Adglish

  • How can I buy these ad slots for pennies when the expensive buyers flee?

    IDGAF.

    If the market isn't working something else is going on.

Slashdot Top Deals

If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley

Close