Yes, News Sites Need To Get Out Of The Ad Surveillance Business -- But Blame The Advertisers As Well
from the takes-two-to-tango dept
Doc Searls has a great recent blog post in which he rightly points out why Bernie Sanders' "plan to save journalism" is completely misguided and will fail. It's worth reading -- with the key point being that Sanders' plan to save journalism assumes a world that does not exist, and one where heavy regulations will somehow magically save journalism, rather than stifle it. As Searls notes, that's not the world we live in. We live in a world of informational abundance, which changes everything:
Journalism as we knew it—scarce and authoritative media resources on print and air—has boundless competition now from, well, everybody.
But there's an interesting point Searls makes later in his piece, suggesting that part of the problems with the news today is that the old school news publications have bought into "surveillance" based business models -- and nothing will change until they dump that and move back towards brand advertising:
Meanwhile, the surviving authoritative sources in that mainstream have themselves become fat with opinion while carving away reporters, editors, bureaus and beats. Brand advertising, for a century the most reliable and generous source of funding for good journalism (admittedly, along with some bad), is now mostly self-quarantined to major broadcast media, while the eyeball-spearing “behavioral” kind of advertising rules online, despite attempts by regulators (especially in Europe) to stamp it out. (Because it is in fact totally rude.)
He later says:
I think we’ll start seeing the tide turn when when what’s left of responsible ad-funded online publishing cringes in shame at having participated in adtech’s inexcusable surveillance business—and reports on it thoroughly.
And, to some extent, I agree. I've pointed out a few times now that, especially for news publishers, the evidence suggests that there's no real benefit to behavioral advertising that requires sucking up all the data.
But this is not just about the publishers. You may note that we at Techdirt use some tracking in our advertising. Because, if we didn't we'd have no advertising, and no advertising revenue at all.
Every single time I write about this, I point out that we have eagerly approached tons of advertisers, even those who promote themselves as supporting privacy, and offer what we think is a great freaking deal to do no-tracking, brand advertising on Techdirt -- which we think our users would appreciate. And every single time one of two things happens: we never ever hear back or we eventually get passed on to some cog in the advertising machine with a spreadsheet who simply can't understand what we're trying to offer, and the whole thing falls apart. We've had multiple long conversations with large companies -- some of whom are "famous" for supporting privacy, and we point out all the benefits of doing a brand advertising program that doesn't track, and we just get politely brushed off or ignored.
So, yeah, I'd love it if the media -- including us! -- went back to brand advertising that doesn't require surveilling on visitors (though, lots of you already use adblockers, which is totally cool by us). But, since not a single advertiser seems willing to buy such ads, we're kinda left in the lurch. So, as I do every time, I'll again say that if you happen to have an advertising budget and believe that supporting Techdirt in a way that we can highlight that you support us without requiring sucking up data on our community please contact us. Given our experiences so far, I'm not holding my breath.
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
Filed Under: ads, behavioral ads, business models, doc searls, journalism, surveillance, tracking
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I blame advertising for ruining the Internet. A simple website hosting a short text and maybe two images now takes gigs of memory to load and run because there's literally hundreds of ad and tracking scripts that need to load.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My favorite are the tools that try to shame people for using ad blockers. Like businesses have a god given right to succeed in their advertising attempts. Ad blocking is normal. Not wanting to see ads is normal. Shaming people for blocking ads? That's mental.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Honestly, this is a decent comment. Shame about the Zof crawling all over it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News Sites Need To Do News Again
Pick any "news site" now.
You can literally list the PR firms.
The fake vaping is going to kill you stories? One firm paid by Michael Bloomberg. Yes, websites knowingly published outright lies and health scares about vaping because Michael Bloomberg paid for it. It was all THC related and had absolutely nothing to do with the vaping everyone has been doing for over a decade.
The fake hate stories against Elon Musk with fake science? That's a PR firm paid by Warren Buffet to attack Elon Musk. That's how you get 12,000 satellites messing up space photography when there are literally 12,000 airplanes in the air at all times. If you see junk science being used to attack Elon Musk, Warren Buffet paid for it.
The fake stories supporting Google's unethical search rigging? Yet another K street PR firm. The same firm churning out ad copy defending the unethical use of section 230 for political censorship.
Can I list any of these firms? Sure. If I want to get sued to death. If I want fake copyright strikes made against me on social media platforms. If I want Google to declare me a "nazi" and algorithm me to death.
The point is, the wealthy 1 percenters are buying so much "news" now that hardly any of it is real. Just the delusions of wealth sociopaths with serious mental problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re a semi-anonymous commenter on a blog that Google has no power over and copyright strikes can’t take down your comment. List them, coward, or stop whining about consequences that you can’t face here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have actual value?
All you do is launch childish personal attacks and offer no actual value. You seem to exist for no reason at all. Try mattering. It starts with contributing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Negative, I am a meat popsicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's at least funny thought. Funny is value. Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t need, nor do I want, your validation. Save it for Blue Balls, he could use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok sad unhappy person. Enjoy your pit of despair and want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Compared to you, the guy who posts nothing but bitching every time he opens his mouth? Yeah, you're the epitome of sunshine and rainbows alright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry you don’t meet the requirements for this quest
Coming from a self professed NPC that’s at the least ironic and at best somewhat profound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: zof: not even once
“All you do is launch childish personal attacks and offer no actual value. You seem to exist for no reason at all. Try mattering. It starts with contributing.”
You’re projecting so hard you’re gonna start prolapsing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All you do is launch childish
Stone was not making an ad hom attack or calling anyone childish. he made a direct and relevant response, to which you cried like a baby.
You are unable to back you your nonsense with facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: News Sites Need To Do News Again
Can I list any of these firms?
So you can't actually back up your wildly specious claims. Got it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: News Sites Need To Do News Again
There's literally a story about Bloomberg's fake vaping PR nonsense on Reason. There's literally 1000 pages of leaked Google docs that prove they are rigging search. There's literally actual science that shows the PR attack on Musk is ridiculous. I don't feel the need to back up objective reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please point to the exact sections of the exact documents that prove Google is “rigging” its search engine, who it is “rigging” the search engine for, and the reason for the alleged “rigging”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's so neat how you show your biases in what you target. Defend Google much?
The irony is you can download the documents yourself and read them. It's pretty damning.
https://www.educationviews.org/google-documents-leaked-prove-mass-censoring-election-tamper ing/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, it’s the Project Veritas thing.
And you think I should trust those lying sacks of fraudulent fertilizer…why, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
google .. links .. veritas
Not this again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You mean that guy?
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/james-o-keefe-settlement-acorn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... and this is entirely off topic, but...
Hmm... Cite or it didn't happen, right?
The Reason story that you quoted earlier itself has a quote from a Michael Siegel, an e-cigarette advocate:
Yet when I go to the CDC's page on the Outbreak of Severe Pulmonary Disease Linked with E-cigarette Product Use the quote is not supported in that context.
Later in the reason article...
Can't say aye or nay on that, but I did just this morning read that Juul was marketing to kids in schools (with links to FDA documentation). So yay, they're not selling cotton-candy-flavored pods?
There's two anecdotes-worth of points in the Reason article that need to be examined closer before forming an opinion. I'm sure there are others that pan out, and others that do not. I would wager the same against the Bloomberg article, including points the Reason article does not try to refute. Still, anecdotes are not data. Inaccurate reporting is inaccurate. But it ain't turtles all the way down. You can get to original source material if you try.
And as for yourself?
Not asking you to back it up. Asking you to document it. You seem reluctant to go to the effort. And when you're dealing with dueling news, you got the cue right there that you need to do that, sir, rather than rely on the news you prefer. Please consider looking deeper before telling us the objective reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: News Sites Need To Do News Again
There's literally a story about Bloomberg's fake vaping PR nonsense on Reason.
You should link to the story you mean, so that people can see that you're full of shit. Here it is: https://reason.com/2019/09/11/michael-bloombergs-anti-vaping-crusade-is-objectively-pro-tobacco/
It does note that Bloomberg is spearheading this campaign against vaping and that it appears to be a moral panic. But you made a different claim: "Yes, websites knowingly published outright lies and health scares about vaping because Michael Bloomberg paid for it."
Which websites *knowingly published outright lies and health scares... because Michael Bloomberg paid for it." I agree that Bloomberg's campaign is bullshit, but you made an explicit claim that news sources are deliberately and knowingly lying. The Reason article does not say that. It does suggest that many news sources may believe Bloomberg's campaign, and thus a narrative gets spun up. That happens. It sucks, but it happens.
But that is not proof -- as you have claimed -- that news sites are doing this just to get Bloomberg's money.
There's literally 1000 pages of leaked Google docs that prove they are rigging search.
No there is not:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190815/18023542791/latest-google-whistleblower-to-prove-ant i-conservative-bias-doesnt-prove-anything-appears-to-be-bigoted-conspiracy-theorist.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: News Sites Need To Do News Again
There's literally
See, ZOF gets it. There are THOUSANDS of detailed pieces of evidence that we can't share with MINIONS. HA!
Only A1 PEOPLE can understand unwritten laws that we uphold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: News Sites Need To Do News Again
...Shit, I think you've cracked the out_of_the_blue formula.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: News Sites Need To Do News Again
So convenient that there are all these powerful forces preventing you from citing sources that would let us evaluate your claims. I guess we'll have to just dismiss them entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think perhaps if we're going to talk about regulations, it's a good idea to delineate which specific regulations we're talking about.
A good chunk of Sanders's proposal concerns making it more difficult for major media companies to merge -- which sounds good to me (and seems inline with Techdirt's coverage of recent media mergers).
On the other hand, I'm inclined to share Rob Williams's skepticism at Sanders's proposal to tax online ads and use the proceeds "to fund nonprofit civic-minded media."
(And a churlish aside: any proposal I'd make for improving online news sources would begin with "stop putting light-gray text on white backgrounds." Maybe someone can pass that along to Doc Searls.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that meant developing PBS (or starting something new) into a BBC-type operation, I'd be all for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pile Driver
We've had multiple long conversations with large companies -- some of whom are "famous" for supporting privacy, and we point out all the benefits of doing a brand advertising program that doesn't track, and we just get politely brushed off or ignored.
Follow the sage advice of Winston Churchill - use his pile driver technique - it would be an effective means of communicating dialectical heresy to a well entrenched advertising status quo.
Pile driver:
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. ~ Winston Churchill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pile Driver
It's good advice for advertising too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brand?
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but even after looking at the linked article I'm not sure I'm clear on what "brand advertising" is supposed to mean in this context.
From the comparison against surveillance-style ad tracking, my best guess is that the idea is advertising from someone (i.e., the "brand") who looks at the potential market area (e.g., Techdirt) and says "this place is full of people interested in X, I should put some ads there for my new product cool_X_thing". That wouldn't require any tracking or other behavior, just putting advertising in a spot where people who might be interested are likely to congregate.
Am I close?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: brand?
I'm sure what they're really talking about is that they have too many irons in the fire, and they want to take some of them out and go press some flesh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: brand?
From the comparison against surveillance-style ad tracking, my best guess is that the idea is advertising from someone (i.e., the "brand") who looks at the potential market area (e.g., Techdirt) and says "this place is full of people interested in X, I should put some ads there for my new product cool_X_thing". That wouldn't require any tracking or other behavior, just putting advertising in a spot where people who might be interested are likely to congregate.
Yup. That's basically what brand advertising is... It's not about "action" (click to buy!) or about getting data for more specific targeting. It's about putting your brand in a place where people who you know generally might be interested in your products/services will place their attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: brand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
name them!
Who are the advertisers that talk about privacy but don't follow through in their actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: name them!
Ummm...all of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising is a victim of their own actions.
No one can tell what third party advertising is subject to give you malvertising. The only safe way to guard against that is to allow no ads at all. Now every site seems to want you to view their ads to make some money. Not one, wants to know who you are or how to get rid of one of those malvertisers products off your computer once you have it.
I am not going to remove my surfing in privacy mode to view a site. I'm not going to shut down my VPN usage that prevents a lot of this datamining for targeted ads. I am not going to shut down my ad blockers to expose myself to these hazards. Until advertising can become reasonably responcible and ethically minded. All safeguards will remain.
If a sight does not want me to see their content because of that, so be it. I don't want them counting my eyeball prints as a method to raise their advertsing rates because of the traffic they get. None of those sites are valuable to me. It simply saves me a lot of time cleaning computers on my dime.
I'm good with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I run across a site that restricts my viewing of their content because of my ad-blocker, I just close the browser, drop to a command line and open w3m to view the page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or you could close the browser tab and stop there.
But if w3m works, disabling Javascript and stylesheets in your regular browser is likely to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're right about advertisers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, But,
Unfortunately, if you want to do without the tracking ads, you're left with a site that looks like this - 2/3 ads [smokeybarn dot com], a bit of content, plus google analytics, which is built in to almost any site by dephaulty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The inability of trolls to remember anything is sorta like in that movie Fifty First Dates. Everyday the trolls ask the same questions and get the same answers. Rinse - repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]