There\u2019s really only been one media story this last week, and that\u2019s the industry\u2019s reaction to Google inadvertently placing ads alongside various deeply inappropriate YouTube videos.<\/p>\n
In case you missed all the excitement, here\u2019s a summary.<\/p>\n
Ads for well-known brands including Marks and Spencer, The Guardian, Channel 4, and Land Rover have been amongst those inappropriately placed. The brands immediately pulled their budgets off YouTube. Politicians yelped; news media (who can\u2019t hide their delight at what\u2019s happening) covered the story; Google apologised (interestingly, for the ads\u2019 placements, not for the videos themselves being there); analysts downgraded Google stock and on we go.<\/p>\n
Google are clearly at fault, and as any media owner should do, they have taken responsibility for these events. There are though various rumblings around the central story which are interesting.<\/p>\n
First up, the role of the news media. For months those of us sitting on the periphery have longed for someone in the news media to fight back. Their expensively-produced content is being exploited, at virtually zero return, in the dubious name of \u2018reach\u2019. As a result, serious journalism is coming close to being driven to extinction by the giant platforms. Something had to be done.<\/p>\n
So, it\u2019s good to see \u2018The Times\u2019 and \u2018The Guardian\u2019 in particular at the vanguard of publicising and following-up on this story. Whether it\u2019s really worthy of a front-page lead in \u2018The Times\u2019 might be open to question but you get the sense that someone at News UK has had enough of being exploited.<\/p>\n
Next, and this might be a function of where I am sitting, this does seem to have started as a strangely UK-centric story. Google and YouTube are of course global businesses so how come this is only now being seen as a big deal in the US, let alone elsewhere? How come the Google EMEA boss is taking all the flak?<\/p>\n
Finally, what of the agencies? If they were as good as they claim technologically shouldn\u2019t they have seen at least the possibility of this coming? After all, these vile videos have been around on YouTube for years; they have even been used in news reports. Their existence is hardly a secret.<\/p>\n
I appreciate Google\u2019s algorithms keep changing but shouldn\u2019t the agencies have insisted that whatever the changes there is no way these things should be supported by their clients\u2019 ads?<\/p>\n
Brand safety initiatives are a good thing, but presumably only as good as the access their creators are given to the platforms in the first place. Maybe the push for more open-ness should go beyond the field of measurement?<\/p>\n
Brand safety apart, next time you read of this or that agency \u2018investing millions\u2019 in cutting edge technology to allow them to stay ahead you might ask yourself what went wrong this time?<\/p>\n
More positively, and taking the bigger picture there\u2019s the subtle but significant change in the words the agencies have chosen in discussing this.<\/p>\n
As recently as last year I think it likely we would have read of \u2018WPP pulling their money\u2026\u2019; now GroupM\u2019s digital chief, Rob Norman tweets in reaction to a Sky story:<\/p>\n
\u201cGroupM warns Google over hate videos\u201d. Inaccurate we explained the risks and offered the choice to the client\u201d.<\/p>\n
And this: \u201cWe are\u2026giving the option and a degree of risk quantification. Have issued advisories on Snap, YT, Instagram soon\u201d.<\/p>\n
Of course, any thinking person in any agency or advertiser condemns the fact that these mis-placements can happen, but even in such an extreme case the agencies are right not to play the big \u2018I am\u2019 by acting unilaterally.<\/p>\n
Agencies have been accused of occasionally forgetting that they\u2019re there to act on behalf of their clients. Referencing, even indirectly, agency-wide deals undermines this fundamental role.<\/p>\n
Let’s hope the traders get the memo. There\u2019s more to media placement than an agency-wide trade involving money and impressions.<\/p>\n