UPDATE: Be sure and check out Griffin’s comments at the bottom of this post. He raises a couple of good issues, but fails to sway me.
On a different note, a response: Chip Griffin takes up the case of using pre-roll advertisements around video of disturbing news items, mentioning that we were offended with the pre-roll ads that appeared around some of the video footage from the Va. Tech shooting tragedy. Griffin makes the argument that news orgs need to make money, and serving pre-roll ads make money.
As I noted in the original post, I understand the need to make money from online video. I understand that such video costs money to host. And I’m not opposed to any ads in the context of a tragedy. But there should be some level of understanding on the part of media organizations about the types of ads that play around particularly graphic, particularly tragic video.
The first ad I mentioned was a “make your own M&M” ad, which played at the front of a cell phone video of shots being fired - shots that took the lives of 32 people. The second was an ad for Microsoft’s software - right before video footage of a deranged psychopath spewing hate. Does an advertiser want their carefully crafted message singing the praises of their product sandwiched next to such video? I wouldn’t think so.
A possible solution? Get the ad department to work quickly in such a situation to tailor some low-key contextual ads that don’t denigrate the seriousness of the video. Imagine a 15-second pre-roll ad that featured a muted background with some low-key music and a message of condolence from the advertiser - “(insert advertiser name here) - our hearts are with the Va. Tech community (or whomever) during this time of tragedy.”
The ends are met: the advertiser gets their brand out, but in a way that doesn’t grate against the seriousness of the situation. And they get some good PR out of being sensitive. And the media org gets paid.
on May 16th, 2007 at 5:56 am
You offer up a great idea, but I’m not sure how practical it is. Generating alternative ads on the fly isn’t a simple process and requires great coordination between the media outlet and the advertiser. Many larger advertisers feel the need to vet ads every which way to Sunday so making spur of the moment decisions can be very difficult.
In addition, one of the challenges I see is judging which video should get alternative treatment. There are the obvious big, national tragedies like Virginia Tech that jump out, but what about smaller, more targeted tragedies? If some creep murders a child but it doesn’t get national play, should that video have different advertising? What about that same M&M ad appearing before a local TV video piece on a house fire that kills an elderly resident? Certainly those are tragedies in those communities, but imagine having to tailor new ads for all of those situations — or even having to judge that it needs alternative treatment.
And I guess my final point would be: TV and radio don’t stop running ads in most tragedies. Certainly the evening news and morning radio kept running them even as they devoted all or most of their newscasts to Virginia Tech. Why should the standard be different for web video or audio? It may be more obtrusive, but that’s an argument about the advertising medium itself, not the ad/content combination.
Certainly an interesting debate and one that isn’t likely to be resolved soon.
on May 18th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Unfortunately, it’s all but guaranteed that tragedies (big or small) are going to keep happening over and over. Maybe there could be plans ahead of time, and tragedy ads already created. The newspaper could make a style about when to use them, for example, when a tragedy takes a person’s life.
I’m not sure why online video should be any different than TV or radio ads during tragedies. The one thing that comes to mind is that the viewing experience for online videos is much more personal than the other mediums.
on Jul 16th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I’m not sure that’s such a good idea. I mean, as they are now, ads around a tragedy (on television as well) are separate from the act itself. They are there as a means to an end. By doing that kind of blatant tie-in with the tragedy, I think it’d be really insensitive.
It’s kind of like going, “Microsoft is with the hearts of everyone hurt in this event . . . Buy Vista.” The end is not there, but the subtext is. I think it would do more harm than good.