Adpocalypse 3.0? Mars pulls all YouTube ads after a Starburst ad appears alongside violent rap videos

[Master Disaster]

For those who don't know (and neither did I until today) Drill is an ultra violent hip hop/rap spin off genre and only 2 days ago one of its biggest names was violently stabbed and killed on a London street only a few months after he was himself cleared of murder.

Quote

Mars has pulled its advertising from YouTube after one of its brands was shown with a drill rap music video.

 

The move was prompted after an advert for Starburst sweets was put at the start of a video by group Moscow17.

 

One of the group's members, Siddique Kamara, also known as Incognito and SK, was stabbed to death in south London earlier this week.

Mars are obviously (and rightfully) upset that one of their adverts was shown alongside such content.

Quote

The confectionery company said it was "unacceptable" to see its brand alongside that type of content.

 

A report from the Sun said the advertising was worth around £5m to the video sharing website - but the company would not confirm this, saying it did not plan to provide any detail on its advertising budget.

 

This clearly breaches our brand safety guidelines and Mars adverts should never run alongside such content.

 

"We have taken the action to remove all our online advertising on YouTube and can confirm we are working with Google and our media buying agencies to understand what went wrong.

 

"Until we have confidence that appropriate safeguards are in place, we will not advertise on YouTube."

YouTube have issued a statement saying they're investigating and have already deleted a number of drill videos for using the platform to incite violence

Quote

Drill music has been linked to violence in the capital by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick.

 

The music often sees rappers talking about violence and using gang-related symbols, such as wearing balaclavas. It has also been used to fuel rivalries between gangs.

 

YouTube has deleted around 30 videos at the request of Ms Dick, which she says glamorised violence.

 

A spokesman from YouTube told the Sun: "We share the deep concern on this issue and don't want our platform used to incite violence."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45065986

 

Starburst ads on Drill videos is pretty bad but this is the Sun we're talking about. Literally the lowest of the low in terms of tabloids.

 

Still when will Google learn the lessons from previous events? Is this kind of drama that undermines the internet as a legitimate platform for advertising.

[mr moose]

What I don't understand is why with googles screening and AI/filtering developments (pick the name of a song and artist, voice recognition etc)  they have why they can't offer advertisers the option to choose words/artists they don't want their ads to play in front of?   All mars would have to do is say they don't want their ads played in front of songs/content if it contains certain words.

[Master Disaster]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What I don't understand is why with googles screening and AI/filtering developments (pick the name of a song and artist, voice recognition etc)  they have why they can't offer advertisers the option to choose words/artists they don't want their ads to play in front of?   All mars would have to do is say they don't want their ads played in front of songs/content if it contains certain words.

That would be a very common sense thing to do, why use common sense when you can use AI?

[Taf the Ghost]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What I don't understand is why with googles screening and AI/filtering developments (pick the name of a song and artist, voice recognition etc)  they have why they can't offer advertisers the option to choose words/artists they don't want their ads to play in front of?   All mars would have to do is say they don't want their ads played in front of songs/content if it contains certain words.

YouTube is over a decade old and they still can't manage an automated Whitelist.

 

They can do faster-than-real-time audio analysis for swear words, yet they can't keep the "really safe videos" stuffed with the types of adds companies want to place. They can find a 7s clip of a licensed song, but they can't operate opt-in white lists for their "family friendly" advertisers. I think the Adpocalypse really does have a lot to do with just terrible management.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

YouTube is over a decade old and they still can't manage an automated Whitelist.

 

They can do faster-than-real-time audio analysis for swear words, yet they can't keep the "really safe videos" stuffed with the types of adds companies want to place. They can find a 7s clip of a licensed song, but they can't operate opt-in white lists for their "family friendly" advertisers. I think the Adpocalypse really does have a lot to do with just terrible management.

It's possible it's a bit of deliberate ignorance tbh.

 

From YouTube's POV it makes sense to run as many ads on as many videos as possible and limited advertising scope is counter productive. It's basically like turning away free money for them.

 

I'm not saying the board staff are discussing how to screw over advertiser's or anything like that but I'd be very surprised if there wasn't someone somewhere, probably working on comission, that knew exactly what was happening and was hoping no one would ever find out.

[Bananasplit_00]

Can we just move all content to porn hub or something? Yt is a real shit hole tbh

[jagdtigger]

Is it just me or this whole "not advertiser friendly" farce is totally overblown? I mean the same companies are fine with playing their ads on the TV before news which can include the same content they are throwing a tantrum about on youtube... (Not to mention between horror films.)

[Master Disaster]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Is it just me or this whole "not advertiser friendly" farce is totally overblown? I mean the same companies are fine with playing their ads on the TV before news which can include the same content they are throwing a tantrum about on youtube... (Not to mention between horror films.)

Actually I think that's rather the point. TV networks tend to offer much more control over when and where adverts are shown, if Mars didn't want ads running during violent movies or during the news then TV networks would accommodate that.

 

Remember that TV networks tend to have differing content split onto different stations so Mars could opt to show ads on Light Entertainment and Children's but not on the News and not after 7pm on any station.

 

YouTube has nothing for them to exercise control.

[laminutederire]

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What I don't understand is why with googles screening and AI/filtering developments (pick the name of a song and artist, voice recognition etc)  they have why they can't offer advertisers the option to choose words/artists they don't want their ads to play in front of?   All mars would have to do is say they don't want their ads played in front of songs/content if it contains certain words.

Because they want to be shown to as much people as possible. When it's child exploitative content mars is more than happy to have its ads alongside.

What I dont understand is why the fuck so they care and how did this happen? Aren't they supposed to have as a sole business model to sell targeted ads? The ads target the user, not the content...

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

When it's child exploitative content mars is more than happy to have its ads alongside.

I don't think that is true at all, companies are very sensitive to bad product association.

 

Quote

What I dont understand is why the fuck so they care and how did this happen? Aren't they supposed to have as a sole business model to sell targeted ads? The ads target the user, not the content...

Adpocalypses cost google money too so you would think they would be actively doing things to stop them. 

 

[laminutederire]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't think that is true at all, companies are very sensitive to bad product association.

 

Adpocalypses cost google money too so you would think they would be actively doing things to stop them. 

 

Well it is in my opinion a bit excessive... it's like pulling out of bus ads, because one bus with ad happened to drive through a bad neighbourhood...

There isn't really product association when the ad isn't generic and meant for any context. It could be placed anywhere, so yeah why the people listen to that music genre wouldn't want to buy Mars product with the heat we have?

I don't know I don't see the point.

I saw a Patel Philippe ad alongside Jays two cents' content, I don't see him as a rich guy, nor do I see Patek Philippe as a particularly Jay's like brand. I got the ad because I was looking through luxury watches to help a friend with a gift.. the ad is only associated with me and not the content.

[Master Disaster]

4 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Well it is in my opinion a bit excessive... it's like pulling out of bus ads, because one bus with ad happened to drive through a bad neighbourhood...

There isn't really product association when the ad isn't generic and meant for any context. It could be placed anywhere, so yeah why the people listen to that music genre wouldn't want to buy Mars product with the heat we have?

I don't know I don't see the point.

I saw a Patel Philippe ad alongside Jays two cents' content, I don't see him as a rich guy, nor do I see Patek Philippe as a particularly Jay's like brand. I got the ad because I was looking through luxury watches to help a friend with a gift.. the ad is only associated with me and not the content.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-image.html

 

This stuff is very important, especially to big business. Any form of negative association is cause for mass paranoia whether said association exists or not.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Well it is in my opinion a bit excessive... it's like pulling out of bus ads, because one bus with ad happened to drive through a bad neighbourhood...

I'm really not sure that analogy works.  It's not who their advertising to that's the problem, if the bus was being driven by an alcoholic murderer who was intentionally trying to run down little kids then the analogy would be fine.  No one wants to support that kind of behaviour just like Mars don't want to support violent rappers. 

Quote

There isn't really product association when the ad isn't generic and meant for any context. It could be placed anywhere, so yeah why the people listen to that music genre wouldn't want to buy Mars product with the heat we have?

It is association, when you see an ad on youtube, that company has paid for the content you are watching.  It is indeed an association and many people consider it to be an act of approval, regardless if it is or not.  

Quote

I don't know I don't see the point.

I saw a Patel Philippe ad alongside Jays two cents' content, I don't see him as a rich guy, nor do I see Patek Philippe as a particularly Jay's like brand. I got the ad because I was looking through luxury watches to help a friend with a gift.. the ad is only associated with me and not the content.

except people don't see it that way, just because you know the ad was targeted to you specifically doesn't mean that the general public care that that's how it works. They see the ad then they see the content and 9 times out of 10 people draw a link between the two.  This is what Mars wants to avoid. 

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm really not sure that analogy works.  It's not who their advertising to that's the problem, if the bus was being driven by an alcoholic murderer who was intentionally trying to run down little kids then the analogy would be fine.  No one wants to support that kind of behaviour just like Mars don't want to support violent rappers. 

It is association, when you see an ad on youtube, that company has paid for the content you are watching.  It is indeed an association and many people consider it to be an act of approval, regardless if it is or not.  

except people don't see it that way, just because you know the ad was targeted to you specifically doesn't mean that the general public care that that's how it works. They see the ad then they see the content and 9 times out of 10 people draw a link between the two.  This is what Mars wants to avoid. 

Now I have a mental image of a drunken bus driver trying to run over little kids for fun.

 

Seriously though exactly this, not everyone understands how advertising on the internet works. Just because the users of a tech forum understand targeted advertising doesn't mean the 90% average Joe users do.

 

They see Mars advertising on songs about killing people and they do associate Mars as endorsing the behaviour.

[laminutederire]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm really not sure that analogy works.  It's not who their advertising to that's the problem, if the bus was being driven by an alcoholic murderer who was intentionally trying to run down little kids then the analogy would be fine.  No one wants to support that kind of behaviour just like Mars don't want to support violent rappers. 

It is association, when you see an ad on youtube, that company has paid for the content you are watching.  It is indeed an association and many people consider it to be an act of approval, regardless if it is or not.  

except people don't see it that way, just because you know the ad was targeted to you specifically doesn't mean that the general public care that that's how it works. They see the ad then they see the content and 9 times out of 10 people draw a link between the two.  This is what Mars wants to avoid. 

Yeah but that's rather stupid if you ask me as a reasoning anyway. It's not like they endorse a guy running over people because there is an ad on the bus he used... my point is that being seen alongside something because you "support" a platform, and something happens to happen on that platform you don't endorse doesn't make you endorse it anyway.

If that's really the case, I don't see a point in living in this world anymore.

Except an ad makes a reference to something, it doesn't support anything except itself. Tho long there is an association like this is assuming all people are complete idiots... And I hope it isn't the case.

[Volbet]

I guess this could just mean an extention of Google's/YouTube's ad policy to also cover music and music videos. 

For reasons unknow (although, we can certainly speculate) music videos have always been exempted from a lot of the same rules that "regular users" have to follow. 

It is, for example, allowed for music videos to feature partial nudity, explicit drug use or grotesque violence due to them being "artistic expressions" (some restriction do apply, though).

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802008?hl=en

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802002?hl=en

 

With this recent backlash from Mars we might just see a stricter enforcement on the rules are a removal of music from the exemptions to the rules. 

Essentially, YouTube will become what MTV was 25 years ago. 

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Yeah but that's rather stupid if you ask me as a reasoning anyway. It's not like they endorse a guy running over people because there is an ad on the bus he used... my point is that being seen alongside something because you "support" a platform, and something happens to happen on that platform you don't endorse doesn't make you endorse it anyway.

It doesn't mean that a conmpany endorses it as an intentional act, but it is interpreted as endorsement by the wider community, hence why they are quick to pull advertising from anything controversial.

8 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

If that's really the case, I don't see a point in living in this world anymore.

Except an ad makes a reference to something, it doesn't support anything except itself. Tho long there is an association like this is assuming all people are complete idiots... And I hope it isn't the case.

People aren't idiots as such, many just have strengths in different fields.  You have to remember that underneath this artificial world of consumerism and competition is a survivalist instinct that won't go away.  That means many things we encountered will be addressed primarily with how much of a threat we consider it to be. 

[asus killer]

but the same company is fine with selling their candy at stores that also sell guns. 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

For those who don't know (and neither did I until today) Drill is an ultra violent hip hop/rap spin off genre

Nope, was wondering why the hell a drill would be so offensive that it would require pulling ads.

[Master Disaster]

37 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Nope, was wondering why the hell a drill would be so offensive that it would require pulling ads.

I think I'll update the thread title.

[schwellmo92]

Just had a watch of some of the music and it isn’t even that bad..

[suicidalfranco]

clearly mars is just racist

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

but the same company is fine with selling their candy at stores that also sell guns. 

Not even remotely the same.

[suicidalfranco]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

specist?

planetist?

galaxcist?

racist

Martian are just humans that never came to their earth colony

[Drak3]

22 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

clearly mars is just racist

I don't see how Mars' prejudice against Asians factor in, but okay.