Tag

advertising

Browsing

By .

You’re at a cocktail party, and you find yourself standing next to a guy you’ve never met. He seems pleasant enough at first, offering his name — let’s call him Eric — and a friendly handshake.

But then, unprompted, Eric tells you what he does for a living, where he’s from, where he went to college and what he majored in. And then Eric rattles off all the places he’s worked, what he did at those places — and babbles on about a new project he’s working on — in painstaking, mind-numbing detail — as he produces his business card. Just minutes after meeting him, you’re frantically scanning the room for any to get away.

We’ve all run into that guy. We hate that guy. So don’t let your brand be that guy.

These days, everyone’s trying to figure out “content” (a terrible term, but that’s for another piece) — while, every year, advertising spend on social media spending keeps going up. Given those two trends, it’s surprising how many brands still prattle on incessantly about themselves like that blowhard Eric.

I’m not saying brands no longer need artfully crafted communications about their products and services that are compelling and grounded in a human truth—they still do, and always will. But an important question marketers should be asking today is:

What should my brand talk about other than itself?

This isn’t a new concept. I’m an Ogilvy guy, and one of my favorite ads from the archives is this one for Guinness that ran in Esquire in the early 1950s.

1950s Guinness ad

Now that’s what the kids today call “native content.” And it’s great. A lot of people love oysters, but almost no one knows anything about them. So in addition to its eye-catching art direction that immediately draws you in, the copy holds your interest, in part, because it’s not about Guinness — it’s about a delicious mollusk. And it wasn’t a one-off. There were ads about cheeses, game birds, and steaks. In short, it was a beautiful and highly effective campaign for Guinness that wasn’t about Guinness.

Let’s pause for a minute.

Think about the kind of people you find interesting and enjoy being around. They don’t ramble on endlessly about themselves. They’ve got a knack for finding what interests you—and they always seem to have some interesting tidbit about that subject that captures your attention. They meet you on your level. They listen. They fascinate. And so should brands.

A lot of brands understand this.

Nike doesn’t just talk shoes, they talk about hard work and human achievement. REI doesn’t just talk about ski equipment, they talk about the transformational power of being outdoors. And Apple doesn’t just talk about smartphones, they talk about design and creativity.

But other brands have some catching up to do. Take the major pizza delivery chains. Why do they seem to talk about pizza and prices and little else? People already love pizza, and a dollar here or there isn’t going to buy their loyalty for the long haul. Or consider retailers that dominate a category — like say, toys or music. These brands have a wonderful opportunity to talk about something other than themselves and they’re mostly not taking advantage of it.

So let’s say you’ve accepted my premise. How do you know what your brand should talk about? Two things you need right off the bat are a razor-sharp definition of your brand — yes, brand still really matters — and a deep understanding of your customer. But tread carefully. To enter certain conversations, brands need credibility.

Guinness could credibly talk about oysters and cheese because beer goes pretty well with both. And almost anyone can talk about say, the Olympics. But even if they had done so in a less ham-fisted way, Pepsi didn’t have the credibility to talk about the Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter.

The bottom line: in an increasingly distracting world, brands can’t expect people to be interested in them just because they show up on their television or tablet. They must start with the premise that people just don’t care about their heritage, their ingredients, their propriety processes or their “solutions.”

To attract interest and build loyalty, they need to talk about something besides themselves that’s relevant to their customers in an entertaining or provocative way. In other words, brands should be more like REI and hell of a lot less like Eric.

By .

Sourced from THEDRUM

Sex doesn’t sell… so, what now?

By Mediastreet Staff Writers

Could it be that sex actually does not sell? An analysis of nearly 80 advertising studies published over more than three decades suggests that’s the case.

Says University of Illinois advertising professor John Wirtz, “We found that people remember ads with sexual appeal more than those without. But that effect doesn’t extend to the brands or products that are featured in the ads.”

Wirtz and his co-authors conducted a first-of-its-kind meta-analysis of 78 peer-reviewed studies looking at the effects of sexual appeals in advertising. Their findings were posted online this week by the International Journal of Advertising.

Their research found that not only were study participants no more likely to remember the brands featured in ads with sexual appeals, they were more likely to have a negative attitude toward those brands, Wirtz said.

Participants also showed no greater interest in making a purchase. “We found literally zero effect on participants’ intention to buy products in ads with a sexual appeal,” Wirtz said. The assumption that sex sells is entirely wrong.  “There’s no indication that there’s a positive effect.”

As defined in the research, sexual appeals included models who were partially or fully nude; models who were engaged in sexual touching or in positions that suggested a sexual encounter was imminent; sexual innuendoes; and sexual embeds, which are partially hidden words or pictures that communicate a sexual message.

“The strongest finding was probably the least surprising, which is that males, on average, like ads with sexual appeals, and females dislike them,” Wirtz said. “However, we were surprised at how negative female attitudes were toward these ads.”

Wirtz said he decided to pursue this research because he sees meta-analysis – the application of statistical procedures to data from a range of studies – as a powerful tool. “The average number of participants in each individual study was about 225, but by using a meta-analysis, we could combine studies and conduct some analyses with more than 5,000 participants – in one analysis, with more than 11,000. This means that our results present a more accurate picture of what happens when someone sees an ad with a sexual appeal.”

The implications of the research for advertising practitioners are mixed, given that ads with sexual appeals are remembered more – and advertisers want people to remember their ads, Wirtz said – yet they don’t appear to help in selling brands or products. “Certainly the evidence indicates that the carryover effect to liking the ads doesn’t influence whether they’re going to make a purchase.”

This could be one reason why a national restaurant chain, known in recent years for ads selling its sandwiches with scantily clad models in suggestive poses, made a very public break with that approach in a three-minute commercial in the last Super Bowl, Wirtz said.

“If the ‘sexy ads’ had been effective, it’s unlikely the company or ad agency would have made such a drastic change. When product is moving, people don’t make changes.”

 

By Joe Liebkind

In the massive world of online advertising, blockchain will be a force to reckon with. Unlike with some blockchain products such as cryptocurrency, advertising can employ blockchain in a plethora of unique ways. The applications of this technology in advertising will help ad creatives target audiences better, share data, make users safer and more private, and democratize who controls the data that the industry relies on.

A New Direction for Advertising

One of the most notable features of blockchain as a finance application is anonymity. While this is a product of blockchain’s origins in bitcoin, for advertising, anonymity is sometimes counter-productive. Blockchain solutions for advertising will instead make use of the robust accountability that the technology provides, wiping the slate clean for all participants.

Blockchains built since the original (bitcoin) have expanded upon the importance of such transparency, and many of the most influential chains will find their killer apps in the advertising world. Companies like Papyrus exemplify this trend, with platforms that make it easy for users to know exactly who is paying to advertise to them, and where their data is coming from. With Papyrus, these users can even decide not to share any of their browsing habits or other usage data, though if they do, advertisers can pay them for it directly.

From the user side, this is preferable to the excess of ceaseless, inaccurate ads that bombard us daily. Advertisers might be put off at first, but will quickly realize that the system works in their favor as well. (See also: Disney Creates Blockchain Platform to Rival Ethereum.)

Another venture, Bitcomo – a blockchain-driven lead generation platform – is creating a smart contract-based advertising model (pre-sale ICO kicks off on September 18) in which payment is due once results been delivered or after generating a smart contract-triggered sale. Bitcomo offers a solution to the traditional advertising model in which publishers are at the mercy of advertisers who are not always able to pay the entire commission as a protection against leads that were not approved.

Similarly, advertisers cannot be certain they are getting their money’s worth and are often forced to blacklist publishers who may be conducting fraudulent activities. (See also: Investing in Cryptocurrencies: What to Keep In Mind.)

Kanstruktor over at Steemit explains: “Decentralized network between advertisers and publishers through caching, and logging of clicks and leads, key statistics, personalized nodes in the blockchain operator MetaHash (fork of Ethereum – ERC20). It is a basic principle of protection against fraud and concealment of data on actual transactions from advertisers, or making unrealistic target bots in the traffic of publishers instead of real users.”

Blockchain’s Advertising Chops

For online advertising, data is precious. It reveals patterns in one’s shopping and search history, comprises social media posts and leaves priceless clues behind. Blockchain distributes this data to the entire network, whereas it was once kept on secure company servers and put up for sale to bidders with a relevant interest.

Apart from functionality that gives users more control, and puts the value of their data exclusively in their hands, this decentralized system benefits ad creators as well. They will have access to immense shared pools of relevant data, already vetted by other participants and proven with the chain, making ad targeting much more accurate and much less expensive. Blockchain’s irrefutable, ledger-like system is a perfect tool in the hands of ad companies whose bread and butter are key performance indicators like clicks and likes.

Instead of paying upfront for expensive ad space targeting fishermen, for instance, the same fishing gear company can use a blockchain advertising company to target those who have expressly stated (with their data-sharing preferences) that they are interested in such gear. The game will no longer be based on flighty browsing habits, but on hard data. Moreover, smart contract ad buying solutions make it possible for companies to buy conditional space, which will only show an ad should the target fulfill certain parameters.

Blockchain’s Future in Advertising

Online advertising companies are just now beginning to develop real use cases for blockchain in their daily activities, and those who get ahead of the curve sooner will benefit greatly. Blockchain is the ultimate democratization tool, and while those who currently protect the status quo are right to be afraid, at some point everyone will realize that an open system creates as many opportunities as it takes away.

The future is fast in coming, and instead of predicting it, the fast movers are already making it happen. (See also: Cryptocurrencies Will Fail Without Cross-Chain Transactions.)

Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

By Joe Liebkind

Sourced from Investopedia

People are freaked out by ads that follow them around after a google of the product.

By Mediastreet Staff Writers

Personalised ads now follow us around the web, their content drawn from tracking our online activity. We in the ad industry have suggested that people are okay with it – that people see benefits roughly equal to perceived risks.

A study by University of Illinois advertising professor Chang-Dae Ham says otherwise, suggesting the ad industry may want to reconsider its approach.

“The perception of risk is much stronger than the perception of benefit,” Ham found in surveying 442 college students on how they coped with what is known as online behavioural advertising. “That drives them to perceive more privacy concern, and finally to avoid the advertising,” he said.

Previous studies have looked at various aspects of online behavioural advertising (OBA), but Ham said his is the first to investigate the interaction of various psychological factors – or mediating variables – behind how people respond to it and why they might avoid ads.

“The response to OBA is very complicated,” he said. “The ad avoidance is not explained just by one or two factors; I’m arguing here that five or six factors are influencing together.”

Ham examined not only interactions related to risk, benefit and privacy, but also self-efficacy (sense of control); reactance (reaction against perceived restrictions on freedom); and the perceived personalization of the ads.

He also looked at the effect of greater and lesser knowledge among participants about how online behavioural advertising works. Those with greater perceived knowledge were likely to see greater benefits, but also greater risk, he found. Similar to those with little perceived understanding, they tilted strongly toward privacy concerns and avoiding ads.

Ham’s study of online behavioural advertising follows from his interest in all forms of hidden persuasion, and his previous research has looked at product placement, user-generated YouTube videos and advergames. But OBA is “a very special type,” he said, in that it elicits risk perceptions and privacy concerns different from those in response to those other forms.

The study conclusions could have added significance, Ham said, because research has shown that college-age individuals, like those in his study pool, are generally less concerned about privacy than those in older age groups.

If his findings are an accurate reflection of consumer attitudes, Ham said they could represent “a really huge challenge to the advertising industry” since online behavioural advertising represents a growing segment of advertising revenue.

Ham thinks advertisers, in their own interest, may want to make the process more transparent and controllable. “They need to educate consumers, they need to clearly disclose how they track consumers’ behaviour and how they deliver more-relevant ad messages to them,” he said.

Giving consumers control is important because it might keep them open to some personalised online advertising, rather than installing tools like ad blockers, in use by almost 30 percent of online users in the U.S., he said.

With little understanding of online behavioural advertising, and no easy way to control it, “they feel a higher fear level than required, so they just block everything.”

It’s all the more important because the technology is only getting better and more accurate, Ham said. Tracking systems “can even infer where I’m supposed to visit tomorrow, where I haven’t visited yet.”

 

The application to the advertising industry is so obvious it is like a slap in the face with a wet fish.

By MediaStreet Staff Writers

Lately, social media has been all about heated exchanges and distribution of fake news. And right in the thick of these skirmishes are Twitter bots. They have certainly earned themselves a bad reputation, tweeting on behalf of politicians and driving troll trains through the media landscape with abandon.

But, not all bots are bad, according to a boffins at USC’s Information Sciences Institute. Computer scientist Emilio Ferrara undertook a large-scale experiment designed to analyse the spread of information on social networks. Ferrara teamed up with some Danish boffins from the Technical University of Denmark to deploy a network of “social bots,” programmed to spread positive messages on Twitter.

“We found that bots can be used to run interventions on social media that trigger or foster good behaviours,” says Ferrara, whose previous research focused on the proliferation of bots in the U.S. election campaign.

But it also revealed another intriguing pattern: information is much more likely to become viral when people are exposed to the same piece of information multiple times through multiple DIFERENT sources. Says Ferrara, “This milestone shatters a long-held belief that ideas spread like an infectious disease, or contagion, with each exposure resulting in the same probability of infection. Now we have seen empirically that when you are exposed to a given piece of information multiple times, your chances of adopting this information increase every time.”

To reach these conclusions, the researchers first developed a dozen positive hashtags, ranging from health tips to fun activities, such as encouraging users to get the flu shot, high-five a stranger and even Photoshop a celebrity’s face onto a turkey at Thanksgiving. Then, they designed a network of 39 bots to deploy these hashtags in a synchronised manner to 25,000 real followers during a four-month period from October to December 2016.

Each bot automatically recorded when a target user retweeted intervention-related content and also each exposure that had taken place prior to retweeting. Several hashtags received more than one hundred retweets and likes. “We also saw that every exposure increased the probability of adoption – there is a cumulative reinforcement effect,” says Ferrara. “It seems there are some cognitive mechanisms that reinforce your likelihood to believe in or adopt a piece of information when it is validated by multiple sources in your social network.”

This mechanism could explain, for example, why you might take one friend’s movie recommendation with a grain of salt. But the probability that you will also see that movie increases cumulatively as each additional friend makes the same recommendation.

This discovery could improve how positive intervention strategies are deployed in social networks in many scenarios, including public health announcements for disease control or emergency management in the wake of a crisis. The common approach is to have one broadcasting entity with many followers. But this study implies that it would be more effective to have multiple, decentralised bots share synchronised content.

Advertisers, mull this over. Bots can be your very best friend.

By .

Facebook has introduced Facebook Cross-Platform Brand Lift in the US and UK which along with Nielsen Total Brand Effect with Lift will help advertisers optimize their Facebook and TV campaigns using actionable results according to a blog post.

The platform will see Facebook will match rival Google which launched Brand Lift for TV some years back in order to help marketers understand how YouTube campaigns can impact metrics such as awareness.

Facebook’s advertising partners who are expanding from digital advertising into cross-media campaigns will be able to leverage Facebook Cross-Platform Brand Lift solution.

Margo Arton, senior director of Ad Effectiveness at BuzzFeed said: “Now that Buzzfeed has begun to diversify our media strategies to include both Television and Digital, having the option to leverage solutions such as Facebook’s Cross-Platform Brand Lift and Nielsen Total Brand Effect with Lift presents a great opportunity.”

“We look forward to using cross-platform brand lift measurement to both receive valuable insights about our multi-media campaign performance in a single reporting surface, and also to optimize campaign elements such as spend and creative across both platforms.”

Facebook cited an example of household brand Shark’s campaign which was deemed a success as measured by Nielsen Total Brand Effect with Lift.

Ajay Kapoor, VP, Digital Transformation & Strategy, SharkNinja said: “We proved that Facebook video ads are a natural complement to TV campaigns. We experienced better brand results among people who saw ads on both versus just TV or Facebook alone. We saw the ‘better together’ impact first-hand. Facebook and TV are powerful individually, but deliver a stronger message to our audience when used in tandem.”

Facebook recently introduced more ways to help marketers re-engage offline audiences.

By

Sourced from THEDRUM

By Shawn Lim.

As the world’s biggest advertisers like Unilever and Proctor & Gamble continue to operate on lower advertising budgets and spend less on media buys in 2017, Facebook believes that putting its faith in mobile advertising will help it ride the storm going into the next year.

Ever since P&G’s top marketer Marc Pritchard announced that the Ariel and Pampers advertiser will review all of its agency contracts and called for more transparency in the media supply chain at the start of year, the advertising industry has seen some major shakeups.

Unilever dropped half of its creative agencies under its employment and reduced spend to $200m, while P&G reduced up to $140m of its ad spend and stopped investing in areas where it was unsafe for its brands, on top of its move to stop targeted ads on Facebook in 2016.

The cutbacks by the FMCG giants were necessary to clean up the supply chain and remove fraudulent inventory, acknowledges William Platt-Higgins, vice president, global client partnerships at Facebook in an interview with The Drum in Singapore, and notes that it is in everybody’s interest that fraud be eliminated from the ecosystem.

“We have seen various marketers and agencies taking a hard stance on this publicly and some clients very surgically try and cut out as much of that as possible. They have done so without any negative impact on their business because the inventory that they are weeding out is actually not good inventory to begin with,” explains Platt-Higgins.

“It won’t be eliminated completely, but I think all the clients that we work with in all regions of the world are focused on reducing fraud as much as they can and getting transparency into the supply chain by using third party verification.”

While Facebook has previously come under fire for reporting miscalculated metrics and for a lack of transparency because of its closed marketplace around its user data, brands and agencies still trust the social media giant, according to Platt-Higgins, which is why all Facebook verticals are growing, including FMCG.

He also accuses critics of being green-eyed about Facebook’s strong, growing partnership with P&G and other big FMCGs, claiming that it is being brought earlier into the creative and strategy planning stages.

“They (Unilever and P&G) are very focused on maximising value for their investments and cleaning up as much of their supply as they can. They are looking to hold all media choices, not just digital media choices accountable,’ says Platt-Higgins.

“One of the things we are starting to hear is the advantage of any digital investment is it is more measurable than traditional offline investments. Digital channels, because they are measurable, the amount of data available on their efficacy and attribution to sales is large.

“What we are seeing from these conversations is ‘It is great that I am holding all my digital investments super accountable, because that is the right thing to do and I want to hold all my other investments as accountable as well’. What you will see increasingly is that investments will flow to media channels that are providing the higher returns of investment and the higher value, and they will recede from those that aren’t.

He also repeats a well-trotted out company line about its closed marketplace, as he says that the Facebook ecosystem does not qualify it as a ‘walled garden’. He explains that people are jealous of the quality of its data and its desire to protect its data, which comes as a result of its commitment to user privacy.

“We certainly hear it (walled gardens) and I don’t think that we would agree with that,” he adds, adding that the requests tend to boil down to various people or entities wanting more data on individuals, which breaches Facebook’s terms of service and the trust that people give when they join.

“That is something that we will and must protect. So that’s our stance on it,” asserts Platt-Higgins.

Quoting a book called ‘How Brands Grow’ by professor Byron Sharp at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, Platt-Higgins says Sharp’s words inspired Facebook to shift its focus to mobile advertising to cope with the FMCG giants’ lower ad spend and media buys. Sharp wrote that in order for brands to grow they need to bring new users into the franchise, and that consumers are not uniquely loyal to brands and instead tend to shop on a ‘consumer regiment’ of products because of mental and physical availability.

He claims that this approach by Facebook has seen it reach 500,000 households in the Philippines for Nestle’s all-purpose cream product campaign using Facebook and Instagram. While in the UK, 37 FMCG campaigns that made use of its tools drove a 3.7% increase in sales, and of those people buying those products 60% were non-brand buyers. In the US, 200 campaigns on Facebook and Instagram drove an increase in household penetration, bringing new users in 72% of the time.

“Over the last number of years, as people shifted to mobile devices, the concept of both mental and physical availability has changed. If you are in the business of growing your brand, what you need to master is mobile marketing,” says Platt-Higgins.

“This is where we have been spending most of our time. Not only is Facebook and Instagram driving sales, but they are disproportionately driving household penetration and bringing new users in because of mobile.

“In Indonesia or India, where there might be power outages from television, the opportunity to reach people with mobile and bring top-of-mind awareness and mental availability is huge.”

However, Platt-Higgins admits that simply porting assets from television onto mobile does not necessarily work and Facebook is constantly reminding itself that the way people consume content is different. He adds that if a brand is not building for the mobile environment intentionally and with craft, care, seniority, thoughtfulness and senior stakeholder-management stewardship, as well as optimising for mobile, then it is a missed opportunity.

“Brands need to optimise in three areas. One is the reach, where often what we find is that clients have gone too narrow with their reach and that can be a drag on their results. We see that the frequency is not optimised and not reaching people enough or too often. The most important thing is how the creative is being optimised for mobile,” explains Platt-Higgins.

“We spend a lot of time trying to audit and show whether or not the work has been optimised for mobile and if it has, how we can make it even better.

“If we can get those three things right, we find that we can disproportionately drive sales and Facebook has a direct attribution to sales. That is the only equation that people are interested in.”

Platt-Higgins’ advice on mobile certainly carry weight, as a report by eMarketer found that FMCG brands are expected to invest 28% more in mobile advertising in 2017 in the UK.

By Shawn Lim

Sourced from THEDRUM

By Frédéric Filloux

Storyzy’s business is alerting brands to their presence on fake news sites. By and large, the advertising community’s response is simply appalling.

French startup Storyzy spotted six hundred forty-four brands on questionable sites ranging from hardcore hyper-partisan fake news sites to clickbait venues hosting bogus content with no particular agenda, except making a quick buck.

Storyzy showed me the list of brands that fund the fake news ecosystem, but didn’t want Monday Note to publish it. Never mind. With 600+ advertisers, you can expect many household names to show up. And they do: tech companies, banks, retailers, airlines, cosmetic companies, luxury goods companies, universities, and NGOs. Reputed media brands ended up on hyper-partisan and fake news sites. As shown below, The New York Times was spotted on RealtimePolitics and The Wall Street Journal on America’s Freedom Fighters:

from original
(Monday Note)

While some advertisers know and choose to turn a blind eye, most of the brands feeding the fake news industry do so completely unaware of their complicity.

In fact, they are caught in a combination of negligence and greed from media buyers and the cohort of intermediaries that rule the digital advertising sector.

The real surprise comes from the brands’ reaction once they are notified. Normally, one would expect most of them to take radical measures to notify the chain of intermediaries, such as media buyers or trading desks.

To alert advertisers caught on junk or blatant fake news sites, Storyzy sends them an email with eloquent screenshots attached.

We contacted about 400 brands, says Pierre-Albert Ruquier, marketing director and co-founder of Storyzy. Reaction varies. Some clearly don’t care and don’t even bother to respond. The biggest advertisers usually refer us to their media buying partners. We talk to most of them, even though we are often received coldly. Weirdly enough, we are also sent to large consulting firms that advise big clients on brand safety issues. The vast majority of advertisers don’t know where their ads land. Or choose to ignore it. That’s why when they refer us to their media buying agency these won’t budge. The reason is that almost all campaigns are ROI-based, a field dominated by behavioral targeting and retargeting.

In other words: Most of the brands don’t really care where their ads show up as long as the overall return on investment is fine. “One of the world’s largest hotel chains told us they don’t mind showing up on questionable sites if it is the result of a retargeting process,” which is a convenient way to say that, as long as they can invoke deniability, performance supersedes any damage caused to the brand, or ethical considerations such as fueling a vast network of misinformation. And if by chance the brand does care, they can’t always trust intermediaries whose incentives are tied to the campaign’s financial performance.

Such a combination of deniability and greed is toxic. It explains the millions of dollars that contribute to the well-being of a fake news/junk news system, one that needs not worry about survivability. (Misinformation media are, in addition, super efficient at maximizing bang for their own buck: their production costs are but a tiny fraction of those required for legit sites.)

Storyzy derived its current business from expertise in fact-checking that goes back to 2012. At the time, the startup was called Trooclick; its goal, using natural language processing and machine learning algorithms, was detecting false information in financial news.

Five years later, the initial product expanded to a more general quote verification system called Quote Verifier.

Currently, the service is available via a paid-for API (access to the web site, however, is free). This function is at the core of the company’s fake news detection.

According to Ramon Ruti, CTO and co-founder of Storyzy, extracting quotes in a reliable fashion—and being able to find and properly attribute indirect quotes—is complex and requires layers of techniques: sentence splitting to detect misleading sentences boundaries like in certain acronyms; morphosyntactic analysis, to understand the nature of each word; topic and named entities extraction; reported speech extraction, for both direct and indirect speech; and other tweaks to deal with language ambiguity and newswriting imprecision.

Each day, Storyzy collects and sorts 50,000 new quotes in English lifted from 5,000 trusted and untrusted sources. The quote is a quintessential element of journalism—especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. Quotes are also the most often forged and the most hijacked items used by fake news sites. Even if a fake quote can be debunked in a matter of hours, the delay is largely sufficient for broad viral propagation on social nets. Hence the utility of the quote verifier to quickly pinpoint false information. Combined with other “signals,” it proves quite effective at fingering fake news sites.

Quotes also have great value for documentation purposes. Storyzy is currently building a private website for a global media brand to be used by journalists, fact-checkers, and moderators who will verify quotes, attribution, and context; the service will be plugged on the publisher’s CMS to warrant the accuracy of archived quotes.

For its brand safety-related business, Storyzy is just warming up. A few months ago, the company started to provide a list of 750 questionable websites to its customers, and more bad sites are added at a rate of 20~30 a month. Storyzy is also working on a full monitoring service to ensure brand safety—for those who are interested.

Careless advertisers and media buyers’s are actually harmful to everybody:

  • Their negligence supports an information apparatus that is both powerful and dangerous for society at a time where democracy is globally receding.
  • While three-quarters of digital ad money flows to Facebook and Google, every dollar counts for legitimate news outlets which rely on an ever-shrinking slice of advertising.
  • The vast ecosystem of clickbait and fake news sites relies on large volumes of ads carrying ultra-low CPMs. It is a race to the bottom in terms of quality of product promotions—a race that keeps fueling the massive deflation we observed over the recent years.

By Frédéric Filloux

Sourced from Quartz

This post originally appeared at Monday Note.

By 

BuzzFeed believes that its growing slate of originals are approaching TV territory in terms of audience size and viewer loyalty.

Take the show “Worth It,” which feature two buddies comparing meals at high-end restaurants with cheap alternatives (like $13 ribs versus $225 ribs, or $2 New York pizza slices versus $2,000 pizzas). It’s not uncommon for episodes, which run 12 to 16 minutes, to generate 10 million views on YouTube.

To read more about how BuzzFeed is selling this story in an attempt to get a slice of TV ad budgets, click here.

In other news:

Millions of people are watching Steven Lim, star of the BuzzFeed show ‘Worth It,’ eat his way across the globe. “Worth It,” features Lim and co-star Andrew Ilnyckyj comparing high end menu items like $70 cheesecakes with $4 variations.

People are outraged by a ‘racist’ propaganda video that a Chinese state media agency made about India. The video features a Chinese actor who is shown wearing a turban and a fake brown beard as he recites monosyllabic lines in a mocking Indian English accent.

Nike is under fire for ‘supporting’ Trump. Grassroots advocacy group Courage Campaign  is circulating  a petition calling for the sportswear brand to relocate its flagship Niketown store  from New York City’s Trump Tower and end its financial support for Donald Trump.

Mic has laid off 25 staff as part of a pivot to video. Most of the staffers are from Mic’s news and editorial departments, as the company switches focus to “visual journalism.”

Gab, a social network popular with the alt-right, has raised $1 million through crowdfunding, even as it was booted from Google’s Play Store for hate speech. The company was founded by Andrew Torba, a Trump supporter thrown off the Y Combinator startup program for speaking in a “threatening” way to other founders.

Business Insider spoke with fired Google engineer James Damore, who compared being conservative at the firm to “being gay in the 1950s.”  He also claimed the memo which got him fired “empowered” women.

Hollywood Reporter traces how the Kardashians exploded into the zeitgeist. The stars and producers of the megafranchise reveal how a billion-bollar brand was built.

As Walmart’s e-commerce business grows and it becomes a significant digital player, brands have realized that Walmart.com is a lucrative ad vehicle, reports Digiday. Walmart offers both insertion order-based media buys and programmatic display through Walmart Exchange, a media network the company introduced in 2014.

AT&T lawyers are talking with the Justice Department about terms of its $85B takeover of Time Warner, the Wall Street Journal reports. This suggests that the deal’s success is imminent.

Feature Image Credit: Lara O’Reilly/Business Insider

By 

Sourced from Business Insider UK

By 

Last month, Apple Music debuted a gritty black-and-white ad featuring country star Brantley Gilbert during a NASCAR race, evoking an unapologetically Americana feel. But Apple’s tone in this ad shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Marketers have been rethinking how they cater to “middle America” in recent months. They are taking guided tours of cities to help them understand people in this consumer group better, and doing research on core middle-America values for their marketing.

To read more about how brands and ad agencies are trying to understand, incorporate, and cater to middle America, click here.

In other news:

Disney is dumping its exclusive Netflix deal in 2019, and launching its own streaming service. The company announced Tuesday that it would launch its own ad-free Disney-branded streaming service (in addition to an ESPN one).

Google’s decisive response to its sexism crisis makes Uber look even more flat-footed. The search giant’s reaction to its employee releasing an anti-diversity memo has been swift, decisive and emphatic, while Uber was slow, dismissive and non-responsive, say branding experts.

Meanwhile, the engineer Google fired over the diversity memo has filed a complaint with federal labor officials. The complaint against Google was filed on Monday according to the National Labor Relations Board website.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki’s daughter asked if there are biological reasons why fewer women are in tech — here’s how her mom responded.  

Oracle is quietly becoming the most intriguing company in advertising. The company is betting that its acquisition of Moat gives it a leg up on competitors.

An early investor in Facebook and Google has slammed them for ‘aggressive brain hacking.’ Roger McNamee, a famous early investor in Google and Facebook, says he regrets helping to create today’s internet giants because they are hacking our brains to sell more ads.

Walmart has spent more than $18 million on tear-jerking ads to fix its infamous reputation. In recent years, the big-box retailer has been making major efforts to ditch its reputation as an anti-worker company that values profit above all else.

A brief history of the hypocrisy-laden $50 billion plus-size clothing market. Plus-sized fashion has come a long way since Lane Bryant was founded in the early 1900s.

The Association of National Advertisers has released another of its trademark bombshell reports, alleging a number of improper practices in the advertising production sector, the Wall Street Journal reports. Allegations in the latest report range from agencies steering production contracts to their own in-house shops by rigging the bidding process, to agencies receiving incentives for filming in certain locations and not passing those on to clients.

Follow us at @BI_Corporate   to be among the first to hear about news and updates from Business Insider. 

Also, sign up for the Executive Summary , a new biweekly newsletter that brings the latest marketing news, trends, and company updates straight to your inbox.

Feature Image:  Brantley Gilbert in a still from Apple Music’s recent ad Apple    

By 

Sourced from Business Insider UK