If you ask me, the original sin of internet advertising was tying it so closely and prominently to specific results.
Advertisers gained a level of data and nuance around advertising that broadcasting or print didn’t offer, all the while paying less for it than they did for print. It was a problem of pricing, one where early online publishers gave away the golden goose without even realizing what they had.
In some ways, the innovation has been amazing for smaller advertisers, but it has allowed advertisers to promote things based on the content, rather than the publication. And honestly, that broke the advertising system for traditional news.
For a quarter century, we have basically created a market driven by advertisers. And that has created all sorts of problems that we’ve yet to properly solve, including the active monetization of misinformation, a level of clutter that makes many modern websites unusable, and tracking that is truly at a level of depth and concern that it is clear regulation of this market is necessary.
But I’d like to take a step back and look at an even deeper problem the digital advertising era has created—the problem of brand safety concerns being attached to traditional news stories. With advertisers tied to the messages on the articles they promote—because they now work in more granular ways than simply slapping an ad on a facing page—they’re freaked out about the potential that an offensive message might be connected to them.
Now, to be clear, brand safety is not just a problem of internet-based advertising: