In the past few years, I have come to dislike ad-supported content. Not because of the popups and the ads, but because of the effect ad revenue has on the content being monetized. I believe it is responsible for much of the inappropriate, shallow, and misleading content out there.
Combine that with any form of revenue-share, and you get an infinite stream of low quality content produced by “Digital Media” companies.
But low quality content does drive engagement, so it makes everyone happy: the platform, the publisher, and the advertiser. But many people and businesses don’t.
In 2023, many advertisers decided to stop advertising on Twitter in the name of Brand Safety, which was a trendy political stance at the time. I thought it was silly.
I mention this because the action advertisers took makes sense in a way; advertisers can have an influence over policies that govern content.
What happened afterwards was that Advertisers came back to using Twitter. Their demands weren’t met, and Brand Safety was suddenly no longer a concern. They were just better off using and advertising on Twitter.
Here’s the point I’m trying to highlight:
Businesses care about Brand Image, but since users don’t make strong associations between the ad and the ad-supported content in social media platforms, businesses tend to enjoy a high level of freedom in where to advertise, with very little to lose.
Advertisers certainly will not approve of 99% of the content within which their ads were displayed, had the content been perceptually tied to their brands. (Check Snapchat Discover).
The current mechanism incentivizes the publishing of low quality content.
Social media platforms could do a better job against that kind of content if they
1. Create a connection that ties the brand perceptually to the content. This might not be possible with the current level of flexibility the platform has in assigning ads to content.
2. Provide companies with better tools to control ad placement.
I’m not against content quality of any level; I’m just against having low quality content being produced for the sole purpose of making ad revenue.
Combine that with any form of revenue-share, and you get an infinite stream of low quality content produced by “Digital Media” companies.
But low quality content does drive engagement, so it makes everyone happy: the platform, the publisher, and the advertiser. But many people and businesses don’t.
In 2023, many advertisers decided to stop advertising on Twitter in the name of Brand Safety, which was a trendy political stance at the time. I thought it was silly.
I mention this because the action advertisers took makes sense in a way; advertisers can have an influence over policies that govern content.
What happened afterwards was that Advertisers came back to using Twitter. Their demands weren’t met, and Brand Safety was suddenly no longer a concern. They were just better off using and advertising on Twitter.
Here’s the point I’m trying to highlight:
Businesses care about Brand Image, but since users don’t make strong associations between the ad and the ad-supported content in social media platforms, businesses tend to enjoy a high level of freedom in where to advertise, with very little to lose.
Advertisers certainly will not approve of 99% of the content within which their ads were displayed, had the content been perceptually tied to their brands. (Check Snapchat Discover).
The current mechanism incentivizes the publishing of low quality content.
Social media platforms could do a better job against that kind of content if they
1. Create a connection that ties the brand perceptually to the content. This might not be possible with the current level of flexibility the platform has in assigning ads to content.
2. Provide companies with better tools to control ad placement.
I’m not against content quality of any level; I’m just against having low quality content being produced for the sole purpose of making ad revenue.