Tag

Google

Browsing

By

Plus new attendees, two ways to look at live video and a Snapchat-branded Ferris wheel.

The biggest spenders and personalities from the advertising and media worlds descended on the French Riviera this past week for Cannes Lions, an extravagant week-long party full of elaborate dinners, exclusive concerts and a limitless supply of rosé.

Tech companies like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter rented out sprawling beachside cabanas for the week to host meetings and schmooze with business partners.

Others, like Spotify and Verizon’s newly formed AOL-Yahoo tie-up, Oath, threw big parties with expensive musical performances. (In Oath’s case it was Fleetwood Mac front-woman Stevie Nicks; Spotify had Solange Knowles, sister of Beyonce.) Medialink and iHeartMedia threw their very exclusive dinner party again this year where R&B star The Weeknd performed for celebrities like Ryan Seacrest and CEOs like Twitter’s Jack Dorsey.

But despite all the distractions — and there were plenty — Cannes is also a place where actual deals get done. Many ad buyers and ad sellers use the week to plan out spending for the second half of the year, and who shows up and who makes a scene can give you a good idea of the current pecking order for the industry.

Recode attended, too. Here’s a glimpse from our notebook at some of the biggest themes of the week.

Who’s No. 3?

The big, 60,000-foot takeaway from dozens of conversations this week is something that we’ve all known for a while: Facebook and Google are absolutely dominating the digital ad market, and buyers are eager for a third player to offer some competition.

What was different this year from years past is that folks no longer believe that the third player, if one ever emerges, will be another platform, like a Twitter or Snapchat. Instead, it feels like No. 3 might be a content provider, a company like Verizon-owned Oath or Comcast-owned NBCUniversal*, that has more control over the content they distribute.

There are a couple of reasons why this matters. One is that advertisers claim they don’t get enough data from Facebook and Google about who, specifically, they’re reaching with their ads.

The hope is a third player might share more of that info. But the other important reason is “ad adjacency,” which is ad industry speak for making sure your ads don’t appear next to something offensive, like an ISIS video.

Google and Facebook are platforms that carry content created by other people. A media company would theoretically have more control over said content, and thus ensure the ads are shown in the appropriate context. Still, no one expects that a third player will emerge quickly. That means we’ll probably be having similar discussions with ad buyers next year.

Kurt Wagner / Recode

Could Facebook’s Live video problem become an advertising problem?

Speaking of adjacency … People are using Facebook Live for all kinds of horrible things, including suicides and beatings. And while the company is just starting to roll out ads within Facebook Live videos (and only from videos produced by hand-selected partners), two ad buyers we spoke with said their clients are already starting to question whether or not they’d want want to buy a Facebook Live video ad and be associated with the product at all.

The ads are so new that this is not yet a significant problem, but it’s also not a great sign for Facebook, which is finally making its big push into mid-roll video ads.

Twitter, meanwhile, is selling “live”

Virtually everyone in Twitter’s upper ranks was at Cannes this year. CEO Jack Dorsey spoke on a panel mid-week and, surprisingly, wasn’t asked much of anything about Twitter’s business. But we chatted with VP of Global Revenue Matt Derella at the company’s fancy beach cabana and he explained that Twitter is trying to sell video ads to accompany the live video content it’s been gathering for the past year. (Twitter spent time at Cannes selling ads for its NFL streaming package last year, but it doesn’t have those same streams this year.)

Derella says selling video ads for its live video streams is similar in process to selling traditional TV ads, but Twitter’s video ads are different in that they’re more targeted than TV ads, and mostly built for mobile devices.

“I don’t think it’s going to be as simple as TV 2.0,” he explained. “Some of the biggest CPG marketers in the world are taking their 15 and 30 [second ads], and we’re working with them and actually re-cutting them for Twitter.”

Twitter’s beach cabana at Cannes Lions in France - 2017. Kurt Wagner / Recode

Jeffrey Katzenberg has an idea for “New TV”

DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg was in town to pitch advertisers on his idea for what he’s calling “New TV.” The idea is to turn what has traditionally been a multi-hour program — a three-hour movie, for instance — into multiple shorter episodes and deliver that to people on mobile devices. He described it like cutting a book into short chapters.

But Katzenberg, who spoke with us from a suite on the top floor of the Carlton Hotel overlooking the marina, said he doesn’t want to create the kind of quick-to-produce internet videos that might do well for sites like NowThis or BuzzFeed’s Tasty unit. He wants to spend millions and produce videos that compare in quality to what you might see in the movie theatre.

The problem? The existing platforms that would be logical fits to distribute something like this — Facebook or YouTube — don’t offer an advertising model that can support that kind of production budget, Katzenberg says. That means he might try and build a platform himself, or work with an existing player to build something together.

“I don’t know. I’m in that process right now,” he said. “Over the last eight weeks I have met with what I believe are all of the potential enterprises that this might be a good fit for.”

Snapchat may not be doomed after all

Snapchat, whose presence in Cannes included an exclusive meeting compound surrounded by bushes and body guards (again) plus a giant yellow Ferris wheel, missed its Q1 revenue estimates this year, but ad buyers we spoke to in Cannes aren’t as concerned about the company’s business prospects as investors are.

Each of the five ad buyers we spoke with said their clients are eager to spend money on Snapchat, and one said he recommends Snapchat in every media package he sends to his clients.

So if everyone wants to give Snap money, why isn’t the company’s business bigger? These buyers claim that it’s a combination of things. Snap is still building its ad technology, like automated ad-buying software and better measurement tools. And it also takes bigger advertisers a long time to adopt anything new — and Snapchat’s business, which is just three years old, is still very new.

Kurt Wagner / Recode

New arrivals

Reddit sent its sales team to Cannes for the first time this year alongside founder Alexis Ohanian. Pinterest has been at Cannes the past four years, but this was by far the company’s biggest presence. It rented a fancy beach pier, and executives told us that they are pushing their new search advertising units in conversations with marketers. (For more on that, and the rest of Pinterest’s business, you can read our profile of Pinterest’s President Tim Kendall here.)

Facebook Messenger was also in Cannes selling ads for the first time. It’s also showing advertisers its new inbox ads that it started testing back in January.

“We are selling mostly News Feed ads that push people to Messenger but we [are] also starting to educate … and teach people about those [inbox] ads coming inside Messenger as well,” explained Messenger’s product boss Stan Chudnovsky over breakfast on Facebook’s beach pier.

The New York Times is not opposing Donald Trump

The Times’s Deputy Publisher, AG Sulzberger, defended the paper’s reporting on President Trump during a panel at a beachside cabana hosted by media giant OMD this week.

Sulzberger, who will eventually take over as publisher, said that while the Times’ coverage isn’t flattering of Trump, the paper is not trying to actively oppose him either. Eventually, opposition groups come into power, Sulzberger explained, and he doesn’t want the paper to be fighting for any particular side. “The New York Times is nobody’s lapdog,” he added.

Feature Image: Solange Knowles performing at Spotify’s beach party during Cannes LionsTony Barson / Getty Images Entertainment    

By

Sourced from recode

By

Oath CEO Tim Armstrong is slightly backing off his bold attack on Facebook and Google.  Meanwhile, the company also seems to be somewhat downplaying its Verizon relationship in its pitch to advertisers.

Those were two of the takeaways from a press conference hosted at the Cannes advertising festival by Oath–the Verizon-owned company’s first public sit down since the telecom giant completed its acquisition of Yahoo.

Armstrong has spoken openly about taking on Google and Facebook, the two giants of online advertising. But at the event, Armstrong said, “Our goal is not to directly compete with Google and Facebook. Our goal is to basically open up new relationships with consumers in a differentiated way.”

Instead, Armstrong looked to paint the company as being a safe company for marketers, without mentioning the challenge that Google and others have had when it comes to ads landing in the wrong place (like next to hate videos on YouTube or on Breitbart articles without their knowledge).

“You hear the advertising world really, vocally crying out for trusted relationships,” he said. “We feel very strongly that from our current position from what the marketplace wants today, we’re going to be able to deliver a very trusted safe audience experience.”

Still, Armstrong acknowledged that brand safety may not be a huge selling point long term. Thus, hinted that over the next year, the company is planning to introduce a set of ad products that “include the consumer in a disruptive way,” and that the future is about “two way relationships between consumers and brands.”

Yet, when asked about the power of using Verizon’s robust consumer data for ad targeting, Oath president Tim Mahlman quickly steered the question toward the company’s plans to use Yahoo’s data from its registered users and other third party data sources for advertising.

A big motivation for Verizon’s acquisition of AOL and later Yahoo was to take advantage of Verizon’s vast pools of data on its subscribers — it knows where they live, what apps they use, where they go, etc. — and use that for powerful ad targeting. Ideally that asset puts the company in a better spot to compete with Facebook and Google, which also boast of powerful consumer data sets that help set the companies apart in the ad business.

unnamed 1 The executives behind Verizon’s Oath gathered in Cannes on Monday Business Insider

It may be that Oath wants to be cautious when talking up using its wireless customer data, given the tough regulatory environment in Europe when it comes to ad targeting.

Still, Oath’s goals are lofty. By 2020 the company wants its sea of brands, from HuffPost to Yahoo Sports to TechCrunch, to reach 2 billion consumers and pull in $10 to $2o billion in revenue.

To get there, besides integrating Yahoo, Verizon wants to grow its global footprint, Armstrong said, while also “disrupting” brand marketing.  “I like to say, ‘Google is search, Facebook is social and we’re going to be brands,” he said.

“Our challenge is, we have to do more than meet the market growth rates,” Armstrong said. “We have to take [market] share overall … Our engines need to fly faster than the tailwind.”

Feature Image: AOL CEO Tim Armstrong speaking at IGNITION 2016. Michael Seto/Business Insider      

By

Sourced from Business Insider UK

 

Websites that run annoying ads such as pop-ups may find all ads blocked by Google’s Chrome browser starting next year.

The digital-ad giant’s announcement comes as hundreds of millions of internet users have already installed ad blockers on their desktop computers and phones to combat ads that track them and make browsing sites difficult.

These blockers threaten websites that rely on digital ads for revenue. Google’s version will allow ads as long as websites follow industry-created guidelines and minimize certain types of ads that consumers really hate. That includes pop-up ads, huge ads that don’t go away when visitors scroll down a page and video ads that start playing automatically with the sound on.

Google says the feature will be turned on by default, and users can turn it off. It’ll work on both the desktop and mobile versions of Chrome.

Google says that even ads it sells will be blocked on websites that don’t get rid of annoying types of ads.

But there might not be vast changes online triggered by the popular browser’s efforts. It’s a “small number of websites that are disproportionately responsible for annoying user experiences,” Google spokeswoman Suzanne Blackburn said.

“I’m sure there are some publishers who will get hurt,” said Brian Wieser, an ad analyst with Pivotal Research Group. But in the long term, he says, cracking down on irritating ads should make the internet experience better, encouraging people to visit sites and click on links. That, in turn, benefits Google.

The company is also starting a program that could help publishers deal with users who have downloaded popular ad blockers. Some individual websites have come up with their own countermeasures. Forbes.com, for example, won’t let you read stories without disabling your ad blocker or logging in with Facebook or Google accounts, so the site can track you.

Google would work with websites to set up messages telling users to disable their blockers for the site or pay for a version of it with no ads. It’ll take a 10 percent cut of those payments.

To protect its ad business, Google has tried to improve user experiences in other ways. It launched a way for websites to load faster on phones. And it used its sway as the dominant search engine to push companies to make their sites mobile-friendly. Such sites show up higher in mobile searches.

Google also has tried to address advertisers’ concerns about their ads running next to offensive content by banning its ads from some objectionable videos on YouTube, like those that promote discrimination or advocate illegal drug use. Google also won’t place its ads on web pages with objectionable content — porn, for example, and or sites that promote suicide or violence.

Facebook, too, is trying to make links from inside its universe less spammy for users. It says it’s trying to cut down on posts and ads in the news feed that lead to junky pages with “little substantive content” and “disruptive, shocking or malicious ads.”

Image: Google’s ad blocker will allow ads as long as websites follow industry-created guidelinesLeon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

Sourced from International Business Times

By

The brutal logic of online advertising

The internet is an ad-tracking machine. It’s been true for long enough that we rarely talk about it anymore, but it bears repeating. For all the free speech and free information, nearly any site you visit will come with a dozen different tracking cookies, enabling uniquely tailored ads to follow you from site to site. Targeted advertising is still the best way to make money on the internet, so those cookies are everywhere. (The Verge is no exception; that VR room isn’t cheap.) Sites try not to be creepy about it, some harder than others, but the overarching logic is hard to escape. It’s a multibillion-dollar business, and it pays for nearly everything you see online.

Yesterday at WWDC, Apple threw a wrench into that system. Alongside new autoplay blockers, the latest versions of Safari (currently in beta) will have a new tool for blocking third-party ad trackers, aggressively identifying and blocking any cookies used to track users across the web. As Craig Federighi said onstage, “It’s not about blocking ads, but your privacy is protected.”

It’s an important move, particularly for the mobile web, where Safari manages just under 30 percent of browsing sessions. When Safari added the option for ad-blocking with iOS 9, it was a day of reckoning for many web companies — raising hard questions about the future of mobile browsing. This week’s announcement is primed to make a similar splash.

According to Marc Al-Hames, who works on the privacy-focused browser Cliqz, companies are already scrambling to figure out the best way around the new restrictions. “This is a cat-and-mouse game, and it always has been,” Al-Hames says. “Users try out different things to protect themselves, and there’s a multibillion-dollar ad tech industry thinking of ways to circumvent it.”

Surprisingly, Google and Facebook are poised to come out of that game ahead. But to understand why, we need to dig into how the new policy works. Safari has had some version of cookie-blocking for years, but the previous default was to allow cookies “from websites I visit.” The new policy goes further, using machine learning to identify tracking behavior no matter how the cookies are served. In many cases, blocking those cookies outright would break basic functionalities. Instead, Safari puts a strict time limit on how long the cookie can stick around, keeping cookies available for 24 hours after a visit and outright deleting anything older than 30 days.

The crucial distinction is between the first-party sites you’re purposefully visiting and the third-party trackers that come along for the ride. As long as a cookie is associated with a website you’ve visited in the last 24 hours, Safari won’t change much — which gives popular sites like Facebook and the various Google services an easy way around the new restrictions. The systems hit hardest by Safari’s new policy will be third-party systems like Criteo or Adroll, which silently coordinate cookies in the background of thousands of sites. Not coincidentally, Criteo’s stock plummeted in the wake of the announcement.

That’s much less of a problem for Google and Facebook, which already dominate online ads. Most people visit Facebook or a Google service every day, and those users will never be too far outside the 24-hour window. Both services also work as a kind of permanent login, used to access sites like Twitter or WordPress without a separate password. As a result, most users stay logged in to Google and Facebook as long as they’re online. Combine that with omnipresent Like buttons, and you’ve got an easy way to see what people are doing on the web. And as long as you’re visiting Facebook once a day, Safari won’t get in the way of that tracking.

Google and Facebook’s biggest challengers in ad-targeting are telecom companies like Verizon and Comcast, which were given a huge boost by recent shifts in US telecom policy. But those companies should fare just as well. Both Verizon and Comcast invested heavily in web media alongside advertising tech, which means they can take advantage of the same first-party exception as Google and Facebook. (Disclosure: One of Comcast’s media investments is a minority stake in Vox Media, parent company of The Verge.) As long as you’re visiting AOL or Huffington Post sites once a day, Verizon will have no problem targeting ads, and cookie-serving deals may extend that reach even further.

At the same time, ad networks that aren’t attached to popular websites will take a serious hit. It won’t be a total blackout, since most modern networks supplement cookies with more advanced fingerprinting techniques that profile visitors without transmitting any data. They can also try to make cookie-serving agreements with websites, collecting data at the same time that they serve the ads themselves. But the new Safari policy will still put those ad companies at a permanent disadvantage to more powerful players like Google and Facebook. Those companies were already outmatched — with Google and Facebook capturing 90 cents of every new dollar spent on online ads — and the new browser moves will make it even harder for them to survive. The result will tip the balance even farther toward the handful of giant companies that already dominate the web.

Apple isn’t the only force pushing the web in that direction. The European Commission’s recent anti-tracking proposals would establish a similar distinction between first and third parties. Only last week, Google announced an ad-blocker for Chrome that’s likely to edge out small players even further. It’s still hard to say what that will mean for smaller websites and everyday users, but Google and Facebook will only become more central to the business of the web.

Underneath it all is the basic logic of consolidation. These players — Google, Facebook, Verizon, and Comcast — control huge portions of how we connect to the web, from the servers to the fiber to the device, ending with the browser itself. Now, they’re using that control to play for advantage in ad-tracking, with users stuck in the middle. iOS and Safari are incredibly powerful tools in that fight, and by all appearances, Apple is using them to try to craft a less invasive web experience for its users. But after more than a decade of ad tech, untangling that knot may be harder than the company realizes.

By

Sourced from THE VERGE

By MediaStreet Staff Writers

Fake news was “both widely shared and heavily tilted in favour of Donald Trump” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, according to a March 2017 NYU/Stanford study. Their database detected 115 pro-Trump fake stories shared on Facebook 30 million times, and 41 pro-Clinton fake stories shared 7.6 million times. Nearly a quarter of web content shared on Twitter by users in the battleground state of Michigan during the final days of last year’s U.S. election campaign was fake news, according to a University of Oxford study.

These are mind-boggling statistics.

Facebook and Alphabet Inc. (the parent company of Google) are now currently under pressure. The perception is that they have not done enough to curb the online epidemic of “fake news.” And shareholders are starting to worry. They are pressing for Facebook and Alphabet Inc. to issue detailed reports.

Investment advisor Arjuna Capital engaged both companies to evaluate the impact that fabricated content is having on their platforms and business. Arjuna Capital is an investment firm focused on sustainable and impact investing.

Natasha Lamb, managing partner at Arjuna Capital, said: “Fake news is not about spin or confirmation bias – It’s about fabrication.  And when fabrication is disseminated so easily at scale, the way we have seen through social media, it represents a threat to our democracy. If Facebook maintains a platform of confusion and distortion it will lose the trust of its users, in which case they will simply move on to the next thing. And that’s what concerns long-term investors. We need to know this is being handled responsibly over time. It will not be solved through a simple algorithm tweak or better user education—those are merely pieces of a larger puzzle.  Right now, we think the issue is being fumbled.”

Michael Connor, executive director of Open MIC, a non-profit organisation that works with investors on media and technology issues said: “Issues like fake news and hate speech aren’t going to go away any time soon – and Facebook’s responses to them thus far are perfect examples of too little, too late. The company needs to start reporting regularly – and in a consistent fashion – about the impact its policies and practices have on billions of Facebook users all around the globe.”

According to Pew, 64 percent of U.S. adults say fabricated news stories cause a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current issues and events. The confusion cuts across political lines: 57 percent of Republicans say completely made-up news causes a great deal of confusion compared to 64 percent of Democrats.

Fake news is a problem. But since the beginning of news media, there has always been a problem with subjective bias. Are we ever going to be able to argue that some news, any news, is more genuine than other news? Probably not.

By .

Google and Coca-Cola’s partnership effort for in-store advertising displays looks to be bearing fruit. The advertising system uses DoubleClick’s preference and tracking data combined with Google’s Beacon Platform to serve up targeted ads by pulling data from passing smartphones. With that info, displays are able to select content based on your preferences in the form of advertisements specifically targeted to passersby. In a recent grocery store pilot program the Minority Report-style ads performed quite very well.

This isn’t actually that new. It was discussed at a few places in the last couple months since the details were revealed at Google’s conference. But, it seems to have quite effectively flown under the radar for that time, considering how cool it is. Coca-Cola made a detailed post about it on one of their social promotion sites in April as well, in which they talked about the potential environments for these tracking signage systems, like movie theaters and other Retail venues than just grocery stores.

coke dispay

Google’s partnership with Coca-Cola for this system has been discussed off-and-on for a few years. Back at the National Automatic Merchandising Association’s OneShow in 2016 Google talked about the potential as applied to vending machines, and said that Google and Coca-Cola were working together on Bluetooth beacons for vending, but this is the first time I’ve actually gotten to see what it looks like and how it performs. Coca-Cola’s Greg Chambers, at Google’s recent Cloud Next Conference, said that it has been experimenting with small tests into proximity marketing since at least 2015 when they first started working with Google on a prototype.

The two companies tested things with a pilot for the system in 250 Albertson’s grocery stores, in which Coca-Cola saw some incredible results. There was a one year ROI on Coca-Cola products displayed by the system, and a spillover effect from so-called “category-lift,” in the form of a total one-month ROI for all nearby soda products — i.e., this system sells a lot of soda for Coca-Cola and all other brands near it. There’s no word yet on when or how Coca-Cola might roll this out to other stores, but given how positive the results were for the pilot tests, it is likely you’ll see one someday at the end of the soda aisle in your local grocery.

cokegif

On a more technical note, I’m not sure exactly what sort of data is being sent to the displays by nearby phones or how it is taken. Allegedly the system uses Google’s Eddystone beacons, which exchange information with nearby phones using Bluetooth low energy. This is the first time I’ve heard of Google’s Beacon Platform actually being used, combined with DoubleClick’s targeting advertising systems, to target people in the physical world. The privacy-conscious might express some concern at the potential of having your phone communicate your preferences to an in-store display, but I would hope and assume that any identifying information is stripped out. Either way, we’re one step closer to this.

By

Sourced from Android Police

By Robert Elder.

Google’s recent claim that YouTube is the coolest brand in the eyes of teens and millennials looks shady in light of new survey data from BI Intelligence, which indicates that older age groups consistently perceive YouTube more positively than their younger peers do.

This is important because, for all the attention that millennials receive, baby boomers are still an attractive target market. They’re easily the wealthiest demographic in the US, representing about 50% of the country’s net household wealth, and will continue to be so until at least 2030, per Deloitte. Numbering close to 75 million people, they’re also the second-largest generation in the US, just slightly behind millennials, according to US Census Bureau estimates. For brands, the way this wealthy and populous demographic perceives YouTube can provide insight into how the platform can be better leveraged — and who they should be targeting.

Boomers are more inclined to believe that YouTube won’t serve them deceptive videos, while millennials are less sure about avoiding such content on the site. This means brands can reach older age groups on YouTube with more confidence that their campaigns will be viewed as upright and honest, so they needn’t worry as much about brand safety — or the risk they’ll be associated with content that detracts from their image. And considering baby boomers find YouTube ads less annoying than millennials do, these campaigns should be especially well received.

bii digital trust millennials are more likely to expect fake news on youtube vs boomersBI Intelligence

Older age groups are also more willing to share content on YouTube than younger folks. This indicates that, on YouTube, brands are more likely to reach an older audience that’s engaged and open to sharing content, creating an opening for uploaded videos to spread organically. There are countless examples of such successful commercials on YouTube — including Volvo’s “Epic Split” featuring Jean-Claude Van Damme, viewed more than 86 million times; Dove’s “Real Beauty Sketches,” with nearly 68 million views; and the legendary Dollar Shave Club commercial, which introduced the brand to millions worldwide, and eventually led to the company’s $1 billion sale to Unilever.

bii digital trust boomers are two times more likely to share on youtube vs millennialsBI Intelligence

Although YouTube ranked dead last for consumer safety in BI Intelligence’s Digital Trust survey, boomers haven’t abandoned the video site. In fact, the affinity older age groups have for YouTube makes them far more likely than younger generations to actively participate and engage with content on the platform. By targeting this mature demographic on YouTube, companies may elicit more responses to their videos and campaigns, generating conversations around their brands.

bii digital trust boomers feel safer participating on youtube than millennials doBI Intelligence

BI Intelligence’s Digital Trust survey examines consumers’ perception of major social platforms. It rates Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and LinkedIn on security, community, user experience, and content authenticity and shareability to help brands and marketers make informed decisions about what platforms to spend their marketing and branding dollars on. The full report will be available through BI Intelligence in May.

By Robert Elder

Sourced from Business Insider UK

By  Shona Ghosh

Google had to do some serious damage control with agencies and advertisers after its YouTube hate speech debacle.

According to CEO Sundar Pichai, senior sales executives made “literally thousands” of calls to explain why advertisers’ content was appearing next to hate speech videos on YouTube.

He told analysts on Google’s first quarter earnings call: “I think [chief business officer] Philipp Schindler’s team has probably made literally thousands and thousands of calls, in-person conversations, and I think that deep relationship is what allowed us to respond thoughtfully.

“And I think the feedback from our partners were very positive and constructive, and I think we are evolving overall to a better place.”

Pichai’s comments came the same day that Martin Sorrell, CEO of the world’s biggest ad company WPP, said during an earnings call that he still had “some concerns” over ads appearing next to hateful content.

Hundreds of brands in the US and UK boycotted YouTube after an investigation by The Times in February found ads from the UK government, Mercedes-Benz, and other major brands reportedly appearing next to extremist YouTube videos. According to The Times, the videos had been produced by white supremacist groups and Islamic extremists.

UK brands and agencies rapidly pulled their spend from YouTube and US brands began to boycott the platform too. In March, Schindler outlined safeguards for advertisers in a blog post, though he didn’t promise they would work 100% of the time.

Pichai said it was unlikely Google would see any long-term impact from the problem and that the company’s engineers were working “thoughtfully” with advertisers and agencies.

“Look, these types of issues are not new for us,” he said. “Over the past many, many years, as we’ve built services … constantly things evolve. We adapt to it, be it from spam in email or how we do search ranking, and all the efforts we put into it. These are the classes of problems our engineers are really, really good at working.”

There doesn’t seem to have been any short-term financial impact from the boycott. Google’s parent company Alphabet saw revenues rise 22% year on year to $24.75 billion (£19 billion) in its first quarter. CFO Ruth Porat said YouTube’s revenues were growing “at a significant rate.”

Image: Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

By  Shona Ghosh

Sourced from Business Insider UK

 

 

 

By Joan Selby.

On-page SEO is one of the things that is on the mind of every website owner out there, and there is a good reason for that. It is one of the key factors based on which Google will rank your website, along with other factors, such as backlinks, or the quality of your content.

On-page SEO is one of the things that is on the mind of every website owner out there, and there is a good reason for that. It is one of the key factors based on which Google will rank your website, along with other factors, such as backlinks, or the quality of your content. However, off-page SEO practices deserve equal attention, because if applied right, they can significantly improve your website’s ranking. The prefered off-page SEO practice, and one which yields best results is building backlinks on authority and popular websites in your industry.

Since that is a very lengthy process, we have compiled a list of 5 off-page tricks which you can implement quickly and boost your website’s ranking on Google. Keep on reading.

1. Build Broken Links Instead of New Ones

Let’s take Wikipedia as an example. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia which feature broken links, which is just what you are looking for. How so? Some users will need to do deeper research, which means they will start combing through links which are inside the article. This is your opportunity to build a quality backlink. Just locate the missing link, but instead of linking to a reputable source directly, link to an article on your page which contains the link to that source.

And it’s not just you who benefits from this: admins will not have to rebuild those links, and users will have an opportunity to deepen their search. How can you find broken links on Wikipedia? It’s easy. There is a complete list of them right here. You can also search for them through Google by typing: site: wikipedia.org [keyword] + “dead link”. After you have clicked on one of the links, search for the phrase “dead link” and take it from there. You can do the same for every other website.<>

2. Try Guest Posting

Guest posting was and still is one of the best ways to boost your website’s position in Google search queries. However, this strategy is challenging, according to Tim Paxton, who is a content manager for BidForWriting

Not only does your content have to be top-notch, because authority places need to please their readers and maintain their reputation in the industry, but they also have to worry about their ranking on Google, which now prioritizes high-quality content.”

Aside from contacting places of authority inside your niche, you can also look for guest posts by googling phrases like “write for us”, “guest posters wanted”, and so on.

3. Create Infographics

Infographics have taken the world of internet by storm, and it doesn’t look like that’s going to change in the near future. The reason why they are so effective is not just because they are great for presenting a torrent of information in a way that is both visually pleasing and easy to read, but also because they are great for viewing on mobile devices, which have surpassed both laptops and desktops as the primary devices for content consumption. Because of that, they are great for building backlinks, and you will have no problem finding websites which will be willing to let you create an infographic for them. Plus, there are plenty of great tools out there, such as Piktochart, which can help you create stunning infographics, even if you don’t have any design experience.

4. Ask Influencers to Contribute with a Quote

Nothing will boost your authority like becoming an authority inside your niche, but that can take time. One of the faster ways would be to contact an influencers inside your niche and ask them to contribute to your article or post with a quote. If they agree to help you out, you can look forward to your content being exposed in front a larger audience, if your post is really good and the influencer decides to share it. Also, you will experience a boost in traffic. All these things won’t go unnoticed by Google, which will rank your website higher.

5. Build Authority on Q&A Websites

Despite so much information out there, it’s getting harder and harder to sift through all the noise. Fortunately, if you are looking for specific answers on any question, websites like Quora Reddit  are a true goldmine of information. Apart from reading answers written by experts from all over the world, you can also contribute and write answers, and link back to your website. If your content is useful, you can rest assured that readers will definitely want to check it out.

Conclusion

Ranking higher on Google takes time and hard work, and with these 5 off-page SEO methods, you will be able to make that process just a little bit easier. Focus on implementing them, create content that will help people, and they will respond accordingly. Good luck!

By Joan Selby

Sourced from Digital Doughnut