"He said the "whole concept of brand safety" is a "problem." "That's just subjective," he said onstage in conversation with measurement giant Nielsen. "You look at somebody and you look at their audience and you say they're not necessarily safe. What does that mean? There was a time a couple of years ago they were saying Judy Blume books weren't safe - Judy Blume!"
"You look at somebody and you look at their audience and you say they're not necessarily safe. What does that mean? There was a time a couple of years ago they were saying Judy Blume books weren't safe - Judy Blume! You should say maybe that audience doesn't necessarily align with my brand. But if you deem what's safe and not safe, that's not up to you, that's up to the consumer."
"The term and its associated industry grew out of the automation of digital ad buying. It was meant to ensure brands' ads didn't show up next to controversial content like violence or porn. Over time, the practice has been criticized for helping steer advertisers away from stories about topics like the COVID-19 pandemic on legitimate news outlets, depriving them of ad dollars that underpin their businesses."
Brand safety is presented as a subjective concept that should be decided by consumers rather than advertisers or platforms. The practice originated from automated digital ad buying to prevent brands from appearing alongside controversial content such as violence or pornography. Over time, brand-safety measures have been criticized for steering advertisers away from legitimate news coverage, including COVID-19 reporting, and depriving outlets of ad revenue. Broad exclusions have produced incongruous outcomes—for example, assessments once labeled Judy Blume books "not safe"—and the issue has become entangled in political disputes about alleged bias. Advertisers are urged to understand individual hosts and audience alignment instead of applying blanket judgments.
Read at Business Insider
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]