Bad Ad Matching: Work 9 To 5 Or 5 To 9?
from the you'd-think-they'd-figure-it-out-by-now... dept
In an age where advertisers try to better target ads to the context of what's on a website, there have been plenty of stories of mistakes. Before Yahoo bought them, Overture used to always talk about how a story about someone being stabbed showed a Google ad for knives -- though it was never clear if this really happened, or was just a possibility Overture dreamt up. However, there are still some bad ad choices that do occur, and Jeremy Wagstaff has caught a particularly amusing one. He was reading a Reuters article about an organized labor group promoting a new website that works to convince union members to just work their "proper hours" (i.e., 9 to 5) and no more... and right next to it is a Cisco ad promoting the ability to work from "5 to 9," pointing out that thanks to the ubiquity of the internet, computers and mobile devices, you can work any where at any time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Blah Blah.. More Crap
shouldn't even be a story..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blah Blah.. More Crap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blah Blah.. More Crap
It is a story, though, kids. Sorry if it's not something you can argue about like movie piracy or DRM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blah Blah.. More Crap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
http://www.regrettheerror.com/2006/02/german_paper_mi.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blah Blah.. More Crap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
just had to correct that typo before some ass tries to call me a bad speller....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
guilty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
personal attacks
Try this: invent a new swear word. Maybe it might be used worldwide and you could get your claim for fame. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are masters at this. Example: "cock-fag", from the movie "Team America World Police".
Or try something more challenging: insult someone without using swear words such as "you half-brained short-armed no-legged proof for counter-darwinism".
May the intelligent wars prevail...hale satan!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
There is alot of topics I dont agree with Mike or Carlos on because I work in the film industry but this is his damn site, he can post as he wills.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
agreed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous coward
Dang... Where do I begin?
First: swearing at somebody. You just earned the contempt you thought you were getting.
Second: the use of "kids" is colloquial, and does not convey either contempt or ignorance.
Third: your taking great umbrage at being called a kid shows a low level of maturity (one might even say "childish").
Fourth: your post served absolutely no purpose whatsoever, other than to be inflammatory.
Why do we allow cowards to post anonymously?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anonymous coward
Because even though some (hell, maybe most, or maybe it's just one guy acting a fool) people who post anonymously are only out to start flaming back and forth all the time, there are some people who have opinions who do not want to attach a name to the opinion for whatever reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anonymous coward
Second: You can't tell me what Rikko's intentions were, only he knows and only the reader can infer. I don't need to justify myself to you.
Third: Using uncommon words when a common word will do does not make you look smart, why couldn't you just say "offence" instead of "umbrage". Does using a thesaurus make you feel smart?
Fourth: I'm glad you're not completely stupid. At least you got the point of my post. You on the other hand are just some jerk trying to act superior and your post serves much of the same purpose for which you condemn mine. Which makes you a hypocrite.
Fifth: You are just as anonymous as I am, or do you think anybody actually reads your blog or cares who you are?
I expected as much from an empty headed "blogger". Wait let me go look just to see what you have to say there...ahh as I suspect, utter garbage. Looks like you were DDoS'd by someone that dislikes you more than I do. Wow a movie review for Underworld 2. Oh Kate Beckinsale is hot so that makes the movie worth watching no matter how bad it sucks? How insightful. Hmm also very noticeable is the lack of colorful language like "umbrage". Yes, it's obvious that someone was reading dictionary.com before posting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in thread ]