{"id":19002,"date":"2022-03-23T18:10:31","date_gmt":"2022-03-23T12:40:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.karooya.com\/blog\/?p=19002"},"modified":"2022-03-23T18:10:32","modified_gmt":"2022-03-23T12:40:32","slug":"ppcchat-brand-safety-in-ppc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.karooya.com\/blog\/ppcchat-brand-safety-in-ppc\/","title":{"rendered":"PPCChat | Brand Safety in PPC | 22nd March 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Welcome readers to another round of PPCChat recap. This week’s topic of discussion was Brand Safety. During the session, host Julie F Bacchini <\/a>sought experts’ views on the term Brand Safety, does brand safety concern their clients, have they experienced an increase in awareness with regards to brand safety, and more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q1: Is \u201cbrand safety\u201d a concern for your clients and\/or stakeholders?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Yes. yes, it is. My public sector clients have an obvious concern, and my retail clients want to focus on sales, not scandal. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Absolutely, it is. I’ve seen enough examples of poor placements and enough examples of settings not working (i.e. I filter out things and somehow they end up there anyway) that I don’t use any ‘network’ partners or the GDN. Anything with lack of visibility. @AmaliaEFowler<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To answer the why -> screenshots last forever and can cause PR crises. @AmaliaEFowler<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, clients are concerned about brand safety. Has always been a baseline concern, then increased during the pandemic and then of course adding another layer with the war in Ukraine. No brand wants screenshots of their ad against upsetting or controversial content. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For sure. Many of my clients require close examination of the ad copy and creative. Definitely can’t fault them for that, but I do prefer clients who are not as strict as long as performance is good. @alexnicoll93<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My clients are mostly focused on sales\/leads, but yes they all want to avoid any PR scandal. @leo_pinon09<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a stakeholder standpoint, we direct a lot of media funds. We take our investment role seriously and don’t want to be throwing dollars towards unsafe or inappropriate platforms. brand safety is required for our partnerships and comes up in investment meetings. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, we take it very seriously. The brand is what it is on the back of years of expertise and authority. Can’t be casual. Plus for better or worse, the reputations of @Optmyzr<\/a> and @siliconvallaeys<\/a> are partly connected. There’s an obligation to sustain it. @TheCopyTrail<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to SEM 90% of the time it is only a concern for me. Then I have to explain to clients that other sites use the Google search engine on their sites, (politics aside) is your brand ok with you ad possibly triggering on Breitbart) @JonKagan<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Certainly. have to be. @PPCGreg<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don’t think all think about it but we do think about it as their agency regardless. Most think about how the brand comes across image-wise. @duanebrown<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes however that means different things to different brands. A lawyer is going to be at risk for disbarment for not complying with strict rules. A DTC ecommerce brand might have a bad day in the press but keep on keeping on. Brand safety is important. Period. @navahf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q1.1: We should probably define what we think of when we hear or use the term “brand safety”?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Professor Fowler defines brand safety as avoiding any placement or context that could potentially harm the advertiser’s brand or reputation. @AmaliaEFowler<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a good point @NeptuneMoon<\/a> a lot of Brand Safety comes down to what not to do as opposed to what we’d like. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For me, brand safety means both where ads are shown (on what sites or networks) and also alongside what type of content. I have certain settings I employ universally for these purposes and will discuss with clients who want to do display. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I feel like it’s an overarching topic that covers ad copy\/creative and where ads show. @alexnicoll93<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The context\/placement and\/or search queries an ad is delivering for. @BorisBeceric<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brand safety isn’t just for placements, but also for the language and visuals we’re using in the ads\/landing pages and how they resonate with what’s going on in the news. @leo_pinon09<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For us, it’s about placements, and content proximity, but also platform behavior. When something truly ugly happens on a specific platform, they may or may not rise to the challenge, and we may or may not advise clients to avoid that platform altogether if needed. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ads showing up on substandard websites\/videos\/etc. – is the first thing that comes to mind for me. Especially because now there’s so much around “if your ads show on a website, you are financially supporting said site. @PPCGreg<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, brands focus a lot on conversions\/leads, however, the brand is very important including where ads show up. The pandemic made people think a lot about this and now of course the war in Ukraine. But even before that, I had people worried about political content. @lchasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q2: Have you experienced an increase in awareness of or requests to be more vigilant with regard to brand safety in the past year or two?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

I would not say more, no. The topics we’re concerned about have adjusted, and some of our responses to concerns have adjusted, but brand safety has always been very top of mind for us. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, but that’s because I’m a control freak and was prioritizing it before it was something everyone was talking about. I was taking brands off GDN a while ago, proactively indicating brand safety. @AmaliaEFowler<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, I would say that clients I’ve worked with are more aware of potential issues if their ads appear in the “wrong” place and the fallout from that. I am thinking about the Applebees ad that was split-screened on CNN with news of the invasion of Ukraine. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, not since the YouTube issues from 2016\/2017 have I seen this much concern. But the issue when it comes to SEM is limited, and more of a YT\/GDN issue. But when you hear brand safety concerns, then is not the time to decide you want to test Dynamic Search Ads. @JonKagan<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the last two years, most requests were related to COVID, the US Elections, and more recently the war in Ukraine. @leo_pinon09<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It depends on the industry – I will say the past few years (even pre-pandemic) have given us a lot of social issues to navigate brand stances on. Coming up with a branded stance seems just as important as conversion tracking. @navahf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not really, tbh. That being said, as a result of the Ukraine crisis and the Applebees ad on CNN, I’ve been double & triple checking that all of our clients have content exclusions in place, just to be sure. @alexnicoll93<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Certainly became very aware of it longer ago than that with the rise of Breitbart etc…activists started to screenshot ads and tweet at brands. @BorisBeceric<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have not seen an increase nor a decrease.. maybe that will change with Google’s PMax. @duanebrown<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The more the algos run our campaigns and the reporting becomes opaque, the less safe we will be. PerformanceMax: can I negative “free”, can I negative “my brand”. Not really! I have tried to steer clear the past two years, but this problem is coming our way. @soanders<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have always had to be aware, but in the past few years between politics, pandemics, and war, there has been more we have to watch out for. The political climate actually kicked it off for some brands. They did not want to be associated with some sites. @lchasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q3: Do you find that your ability to keep your brands \u201csafe\u201d from appearing alongside objectionable types of content easier on some platforms than others? Which ones are better or worse for you?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Targeting by Audience on GDN is a never-ending process of excluding website placements. Eventually just becomes not worth the time. @PPCGreg<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to brand safety and say YT or GDN, it is very much a Schr\u00f6dinger’s cat scenario. Search is by far the easiest. But most issues, like the chances of being killed by a baby pygmy goat, are 99% preventable in SEM…but never 100%. @JonKagan<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are there places you are more safe than others? The opacity factor is key here. Google used to be safe and manageable on GdN. Facebook was never so safe Ias the targeting algo runs off track. Anything programmatic is problematic. So we need dynamic blacklists. @soanders<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a bit of a loaded question – no platform is fully safe because precarious content will always find a way to slip through. @navahf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is absolutely becoming more difficult. Google is making it tougher every year lately. I don’t think any platform has this nailed down either. @lchasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So managed buys aside, Google is actually pretty good about this because of the level of precision possible. Twitter is the WORST, they just don’t believe in exclusions at all. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

#LinkedIn<\/a> tends to be the “safest” however it’s niche and expensive. #Google<\/a> + #Facebook<\/a> represent risk until you perfect your exclusion list. #Microsoft<\/a> tends to be safeish just has volume issues Any and all video channels absolutely need to be audited. @navahf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nothing is 100% ‘safe’ and that is a discussion that I have with every client – regardless, there is a risk. However with something like the GDN or something with less visibility, safety plummets. In general, social platforms feel safer to me. @AmaliaEFowler<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No platform is fully “safe” and with more automation the chances of brands appearing alongside “objectionable” content rise. Programmatic has always been problematic. @BorisBeceric<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think Google makes it easy with categories you can say you want or don’t want to show it. Though you can still find you show up places you don’t like online. Not an easy thing to tackle and way harder than the platforms make it seems. @duanebrown<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

GDN needs better controls. It is not worth the effort for display. Debatable for remarketing. YouTube can have its yikes finds too. Social you know where ads are, but not what posts are before or after & for ex FB has been ugly for 2-3 years now in that regard. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The beauty of managing “brand safety” today is that you can’t in anything targeting audiences. By definition, if you target the person, you ignore the context, and that is where the problem arises. Perhaps the end of cookies will solve this. @soanders<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only platform this works on is our owned properties e.g. blog, website, emails. Even YouTube and Spotify aren’t safe because who knows what ads they’ll run over our content. I’m trying really hard to move to owned-first but GA4 wants to screw me over. @TheCopyTrail<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q4: Do you think that the tools that the platforms provide are adequate for your brand safety needs and concerns?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

No, but I also think that’s partially purposeful – they’re all out to make $$$. @soanders also makes a good point with behavioral-based targeting – you go where the person goes. Sure, there would be errors with context-only, but probably less of them. @AmaliaEFowler<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No. And here’s cynical me thinking out loud, but I don’t think platforms are overly interested in providing more control because of money. @BorisBeceric<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That the platforms provide? that’s a real quick no. We use extra, additional tools to block things out, and due to ugc everywhere, there just isn’t any guarantee. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nope, and not a chance in hell they ever will be. @TheCopyTrail<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, they do not provide adequate tools. Yes, this is a purposeful choice in my opinion. Provide *some* control, but not reliable or absolute control. Platforms really don’t want to look too hard at what is part of their networks, which is a big part of it. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

LOL, no. @beyondcontent<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, and they really have no incentive to do this. Increasing shareholder value means making more money, so their goal is to increase how many places our ads display, not decrease it. @lchasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of this it their own risk management strategy. If they provide better or stronger tools, then they have to actually review all content and categorize it. They don’t want to do that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is assuming responsibility. @NeptuneMoon<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do telephone operators do what they can to fight scam callers? Is it in their interest? @soanders<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think don’t they are and not sure they ever will be… it’s a game of cat & mouse with people trying to make money off this. Now platforms should try harder in the end. They have the money to make it better. @duanebrown<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For what it’s worth, at @Optmyzr we’re able to let advertisers get some of this back. For ex. letting you exclude individual search partners’ placements. Full disclosure, we’re yet to see what moving to the new Google Ads API will do to these controls. @TheCopyTrail<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q5: Have you stopped advertising on any platforms because of brand safety issues? To the extent you can share, what specifically made you stop?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

I don’t use the Google Display Network for anything other than remarketing (and barely then). I also disabled search partners, network partners, any partner sites I can’t see. If I don’t have visibility, I don’t use it. It’s not worth it. @AmaliaEFowler<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some brands stopped on Facebook due to this and I have had other brands stop doing display because of this as well. You just cannot control what your content shows up next to. A post about a family member passing away, then your ad starts up right under it. @lchasse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’m not using Google Search Partners for the lack of transparency on where the ads are showing, and just poor performance overall. @leo_pinon09<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In collaboration with clients, we paused on Facebook during major protests in 2020. And we’ve been talking about Spotify’s Rogan problem. It’s case by case, but we do take public positions and invite platforms to learn with us and share their action plans. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not yet… first time for everything. @duanebrown<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I forget YouTube – I generally curate a list there if I use it. In terms of what made me stop, the absolute trash sites that were getting the majority of impressions when I would audit. That, and my exclusions stopped being true exclusions cause Google will Google. @AmaliaEFowler<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many have stopped, GDN and YT advertising due to brand safety issues. Brand safety is particularly an issue with PMax campaigns. @KurtHenninger<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Publishers are living bad times (think at Online Newspapers) this is driving to an increment in ad units per page (display slots) this confusion in page is again driving less relevancy to display impression value (aka awareness value) so I use GDN only for RMK. @ga_benedetti<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stop and go is absolutely the future of digital advertising optimization. It is a hard sell with brands, but the only real way to test. But I haven’t had brand safety stops. Only performance stops. @soanders<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, but not in search, just YouTube\/Social {insert name of proactive digital media tool}. Essentially we learned from all prior mistakes (i.e. Jan 6), put together a game plan, and unfortunately we needed to deploy it with the Ukraine invasion, to protect the brand. @JonKagan<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q6: What is your biggest brand safety in advertising frustration(s)?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The inability to easily exclude mobile apps is a giant frustration amongst our clients and, frankly, the reason why many of them don’t use GDN. Many clients don’t use search partners b\/c we can’t exclude sites there. @beyondthepaid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And a few clients won’t use YouTube or Discovery b\/c you can’t exclude sites\/ use a white list. @beyondthepaid<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The challenge with brand safety is wider than just context. It is a consequence of the decomposition of ad elements and the deconnexion from placement selection. My biggest frustration is simply not knowing how my ad will look and where it will show. @soanders<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most recently – @shepzirnheld<\/a> pointing out some placements are being categorized as “other” twitter.com\/shepzirnheld\/s\u2026<\/a> @PPCGreg<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of it? it’s vague, it’s unmanageable, it’s platform by platform. let’s get some common sense up in here! @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can I throw out there that capitalism might be a problem? Actual editors know when something should not have any ads next to it, and still must be published as a public service. Funding actual news and actual researched content without ads would help a great deal. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe a bit off-topic, but I find programmatic infuriating. So much promise, but a cesspool of ad fraud and money laundering. @BorisBeceric<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That the platforms… minus Snap so far… don’t bake it into their tech and roadmap. It always seems like an afterthought. @duanebrown<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I legitimately do not think most of the networks take brand safety very seriously. It’s one of those things that only seems to show up when called out, and I’d bet the PR hit isn’t as brutal as the revenue loss potential. @armondhammer<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That I will never know what really happens. I have the chance to work as Advertiser AND Publisher – and as a Publisher, I could see ALL the banners that appeared in my client network to exclude the ones I did not like. This transparency is lacking in Advertising. @ga_benedetti<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Q7: If you could have one wish with regard to brand safety in advertising on platforms, what would it be?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

See my A6. They should be baking this into their tech and roadmap. Automation isn’t at arms with brand safety. We can have both if we start with a brand-safe world. @duanebrown<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Actual negatives, ability to filter out dark posts, and no limit on placement exclusions. @JuliaVyse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I really think everyone needs more common sense controls. G’s power in AI is where I’d like to see an application to apply proper guardrails. @armondhammer<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please for the love of whatever you hold dear, stop letting Nazis, fascists, traffickers, child abusers, and other evil people advertise\/post on your platforms. We can figure out the rest later but this one just needs to be done. @TheCopyTrail<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

PPCChat Participants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n