This isn’t really a surprise from Mr. Pivot-to-Video himself; but I have to wonder how the con works to convince advertisers that running ads against ‘content’ so organic that you need to pay someone to churn it out is worth whatever the going rate is.
Do they just lie blatantly and consistently? Do some weasel-wording about the details of how impression targeting tools actually work; then claim it’s on you for not understanding the ever-shifting black box behind the GUI? Do both sides agree that content provenance is irrelevant so long as The Algorithm suspects that it’s real people looking at it, and the ads, rather than bots watching bots?
Are advertisers just really easy to lie to because being in advertising requires faith in the efficacy of advertising?
