434
Google caught placing big-brand ads on hardcore porn sites, report says (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It's the kind of amateur fuck-up that you wouldn't expect from the world's most successful advertising company.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    Because it's not about whether or not it should be no big deal. It's about whether or not it is currently a big deal

    I totally agree with you personally, but whoever was in charge of this should know better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Come on, you do know a lot of people take offense at porn for various reasons, right? And most mainstream brands don't like being associated with offensive stuff...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Dogs? What?

    Anyway, nobody's saying certain sites shouldn't be allowed to have ads. The issue is which ads are shown on which sites. Advertisers don't want their ads showing up next to content that their target audience might consider offensive. They also don't want to waste their ad budget showing ads to people who aren't likely to respond to the ad. The ability to pair ads with content that appeals to a certain audience is the whole reason Google is such an effective advertising platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Most mainstream brands don't like to say they're beyond willing to be associated with offensive stuff as long as it makes them money and they can pretend they aren't associated with it. Google knows what they're doing and they're more than happy to take the bad press, which won't effect them in any meaningful way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    For a lot of brands their most valuable customers are middle and upper class people, and their tastes tend to veer prudish/judgmental/conservative on these things. IE with the example of a kitchen appliance manufacturer, we think that's a very popular/cross-class purchasing category, except for the fact that for tons of us our kitchen appliances are chosen for us by our landlords and among homeowners, the only ones who are regularly going out and swapping out their kitchen appliances are the well-off ones. LG's best customers, and this is true of most businesses, are their rich customers.

    For the most part, rich and affluent customers' tastes count for more just because they can consume more, and many of the people in charge of advertising decisions at these companies are themselves middle or upper class, so it's like a self-reinforcing ideological loop caused by structural economic inequality. The population at large's opinion about whether shit like this even matters doesn't really enter into the equation because what counts as "respectable" for companies is entirely decided on a per-dollar basis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent