Previously on BoingBoing
It’s more than just a desire not to see your brand beside depressing content. It’s that people hold the brands responsible for the content. The expectation seems to be that someone from Coke will personally vet every YouTube video that gets a Coke pre-roll. That’s not going to happen so they employ overly cautious algorithms to avoid appearing beside any controversial or heated subject.
Coke wants to sell sugar water to everyone. There’s no upside to advertising on potentially controversial content if Coke is going to risk a boycott from one half of the audience.
Y’all gotta admit that life is so much better now under corporate rule than that of the state of jack booted thugs. In this case, we get the relief of ignorance of what’s actually going on in the world in response to incentives given to the press to ignore important news.
You know; fucking sickening.
Yeah I’d probably be lucky to just not to wind up in a sh*thole Clink™ franchise, not having the Reagans to afford the more posh private prison of the Hoosegow™.
Does this mean we’ll get more news on TV per half-hour? I certainly hope so. It’s not like TV major networks couldn’t pay for the news out of the money they make from “Hit” shows these days. Unfortunately the last show I can think of like that is “Seinfeld” and that’s been of for a long while now. I mostly watch News of TV. What’s considered a “Hit” on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, and NBC) these days? .
Reasonable but how about the marketing teams at Sensitive Co XYZ saying to themselves “we need to reach, engage and energise our audience without skewing the news”?
Even if only insofar as they are members of the population who should be aware of news.
Oh, don’t mistake my explanation for a defense. I just see the logic in wanting to do this, not that it should be done.
That being said, every corporation is just a structure that exists to make money. They will only ever willingly behave insofar as it gets them more money than not behaving. If the amount of outrage generated by doing a shitty thing isn’t enough to disincentive consumers enough to make the shitty thing unprofitable, they will do it 100 times out of 100. So rather than trying to get marketing teams to do the right thing that’s against their perceived financial interest, I think it’s more reasonable to just try and make the news more independent of them. I don’t have a great solution to this either, because more federal funding for newspapers just moves the problem to a different area, and I’m not convinced getting consumers to pay for a product en masse that they can get for free elsewhere is any more realistic than expecting a marketing team to be properly socially conscious. That being said it might be doable if there was a news product that was enough quality to be clearly better than free online news. (For me, personally, this would be a news service that only runs stories once a day, like a daily newspaper, and uses the extra time to thoroughly research the stories. I feel like trying to get the news out as fast as possible no longer makes sense. It’s not like if another paper gets the big scoop, and you don’t in time to get it in the morning paper, everyone buys your competitor’s paper instead of yours. Now if someone else finds a big story you just copy their work and post it yourself five minutes later, and neither one of you made a sale anyway. Might as well slow down and do the news well. That being said, I’m not sure this idea would actually sell well. I’d definitely pay for it though.)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.