‘We’ve had to tone down our honesty’: Confessions of a publisher on brand-safety concerns
The crackdown on extremist content online has been a long time coming, but some publishers say they’ve been inadvertently punished by brands’ efforts to avoid having their ads appear next to offensive material. In the latest in our Digiday Confessions series, one publisher of a lifestyle site for women said the crackdown has forced her to water down her editorial strategy.
When did you first notice an increased attention to brand-safety discipline?
Increasingly over the last year, the guidelines around what is considered appropriate content and language seem to have gotten stricter. The enforcement [put in place by] some of the demand partners we work with has gotten much more serious. It seems like ad exchanges and brands are just becoming way more attuned to pretty subtle themes in content in a way I don’t think they were before.
What’s your editorial positioning?
We’re a mainstream content site for women, and we do a lot of relationship content that’s similar to what you might see on Cosmo, Glamour, Women’s Health, Bustle, Refinery29. Sexual content was 10 percent or less. Now, I’d say, 2 percent falls into that category. We’re forced to target away from content that’s vaguely sexual in nature, which means that there’s no way for us to monetize that content.
What are some of the words that have been flagged?
In the past, it was explicit words like “fuck” or words related to oral sex such as “blowjob” — which I think everyone understood. Now, it’s clinical terms like “penis,” “vagina,” “clitoris,” “orgasm,” or even curse words like “damn” and “crap, ” Those are words some people say in front of their children.
What’s the process like?
It depends on the exchange. You’ll get a notification, and they ask you to target away from a piece of content. We’ve had very little of that from Google. Other exchanges, they send us an email delineating content they served ads on the day before and say, please target away from it.
Why did you decide you had to stop doing that content altogether?
It’s a question of how effectively you can monetize it. We pay attention to revenue per page. If we have to target away from it, the monetization potential of that page might not be worth maintaining it. So it has a pretty profound impact on our editorial decision-making. It shouldn’t be objectionable. That’s the conversation I think more people should be having. Why shouldn’t we have the word “vagina” in an article about women’s health?
What’s it like to have to change your editorial mix over these objections?
It’s incredibly frustrating that we don’t have more leverage. We’re very beholden to exchanges. That’s where pretty much all of our revenue comes from. That means our brand has changed a lot. It’s a conundrum for us. We developed an audience of millions on a budget of about $50,000 a month. There was a lot of upside to being honest, and it created a huge emotional connection. It seems like this was the right way to go. Now, we’re in this position where we’ve had to tone down that honesty and authenticity. Our site really feels like a lot of content out there, and that has an impact on our ability to differentiate when it comes to raising money. This brand-safety concern is really furthering the race to the middle.
Have readers noticed?
We’ve definitely gotten feedback — “I used to love it when you did content about this and that.” Our engagement was much higher when we were allowing our writers to be more voice-y.
Have you thought about communicating all this to readers or changing your business model altogether?
Yes. It’s going to be a big area of focus for us, thinking about whether we want to stay on this programmatic path or if we want to go back to our roots. The only way we could do that is going direct to our readers, and we’re definitely exploring a subscription model. We’ve added e-commerce to our business. It’s become apparent that depending on programmatic is probably not the way to go unless you’re a mainstream publisher. It’s not exciting to be a publisher when that’s your monetization model.
‘Football has lost its soul’: How Copa90 is repositioning itself around the creator economy
Copa90’s overseers believe there’s another shift happening in tandem with the corporatization of the sport that has the potential to be just as transformative
Why The New York Times’ Wirecutter is ramping up focus on style
In early 2021, Wirecutter soft-launched a new dedicated style section and is is currently hiring for style-dedicated roles.
‘Culture change takes years’: Facing ongoing calls for DE&I gains, publishers set new standards for hiring practices
The media industry is trying to solve a long-standing challenge: it is mostly white and male. Here's how some publishers are doing it.
SponsoredHow retailers can be ready for holiday shoppers this year
Suchi Sastri, managing director and partner, Boston Consulting Group As the holiday season approaches and the pandemic continues to evolve, retailers want to know what to expect. Will e-commerce continue to grow at the rate it did last year? How big of a role will in-store shopping play in holiday shopping? While it’s still early, […]
Meet the ‘absolutist’ with the Section 230 tattoo on Google’s new misinformation policy team
Part of a nascent government affairs and public policy team at Google, Jess Miers is a die-hard fan of the 26-word law that gives legal cover to big tech platforms.
‘A perfect time for someone like me to be in this role’: Maria Reeve is breaking barriers at the Houston Chronicle
Maria Reeve didn’t set out to become the first person of color to oversee the Houston Chronicle’s newsroom. But now that she is, she’s making it count.