<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;advertisers&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:48:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>HuffPost Moderates Comments To Please Advertisers [Updated: Or Not]</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/12562620788/huffpost-moderates-comments-to-please-advertisers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/12562620788/huffpost-moderates-comments-to-please-advertisers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <i><b>Update:</b> After hearing from a few people at Huffington Post, it appears that the original explanation from Isaf was unclear, and led us to believe they were moderating comments based on advertiser preferences.  However, Huffington Post has now clarified that they use the same AI just to determine how to post ads on certain content -- and that's what Isaf meant with his remarks.  Not that they moderate comments based on advertiser preferences.</i> 
<br /><br />
We've been somewhat excited that we're rapidly approaching one million total comments on Techdirt.  We thought it was quite a nice milestone. But we feel a bit small to learn that the Huffington Post <i>already</i> has over <i>70 million comments</i> just <i>this year</i> alone.  Over at Poynter, Jeff Sonderman has a fascinating interview with the site's director of community, Justin Isaf, about <a href="http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/190492/how-the-huffington-post-handles-70-million-comments-a-year/" target="_blank">how they manage all those comments</a>.  Apparently they have a staff of 30 full time comment moderators, helped along by some artificial intelligence (named Julia) from a company they bought just for this technology.  
<br /><br />
Now, obviously, sites have lots of different philosophies on moderating comments.  Our own is pretty open.  We have a spam filter that tries to cut out obvious spam (of which we get about 1,000 per day, last I checked) and other than that comments are basically unmoderated.  We <i>do</i> have a system that allows <i>the community</i> to vote on funny and insightful comments (which we then round up in a weekly "best of" post).  We also, just recently, introduced our <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120815/01490520058/first-word-last-word-letting-our-biggest-fans-help-shape-conversation-our-comments.shtml">first word/last word</a> feature, which lets the community promote certain comments.  Finally the community can also "report" comments they find problematic, which then minimizes those comments, though they remain available for anyone to see with one click.  We've found that this system of trusting the community works pretty damn well overall.
<br /><br />
HuffPo, on the other hand, between the technology and the moderators, seems more focused on nudging the conversation themselves.  I can understand and respect that choice, but there was one detail that struck me as a bit questionable:
<blockquote><i>
I&#8217;m a big fan of having machines help us with the lower level tasks, freeing up time, resources and brain power for more interesting and complex tasks. Julia [the artificial intelligence system that HuffPo owns] takes that a few steps further and helps us with a lot of other aspects of HuffPost in addition to helping weed out abusive members, including identifying intelligent conversations for promotion, and <b>content that is a mismatch for our advertisers</b>. She has allowed us to do a lot more with a lot less.
</i></blockquote>
(Note: see <b>update</b> at the top).  I recognize that these are all advertising businesses, but I'm a bit surprised to see HuffPo so blatantly admit that they moderate comments if they're "a mismatch for our advertisers."  I've seen plenty of sites say they'll moderate inappropriate commentary, but leave reasonable commentary alone even if it's critical.  But HuffPo is basically saying that if advertisers aren't likely to like the comments, they may moderate them.  It's their system, and they can do what they want with that, but personally, that makes me feel uncomfortable.  We've always tried to promote the fact that our own community is very opinionated (and not shy about it) when we've spoken to advertisers, and we use that as a way of explaining why things they do should be authentic and real, rather than forced and phony.  And, because of that, we'd like to think that we're able to drive more interesting engagement.  If you leave open the possibility of moderating comments that advertisers won't like, that seems to only encourage bogus and annoying advertising, since marketers may never learn that people don't actually like that kind of thing.
<br /><br />
In the end, HuffPo's position is obviously self-serving, even as they pretend that it's best for advertisers.  What they may end up doing is hiding the fact that the advertisements are bad, rather than improving the quality of the advertising.  Now, obviously, I'm sure AOL does quite fine with HuffPo's ad selling (and they're a hell of a lot bigger than us), but it still struck me as interesting to see the company so blatantly admit how it reacts to content their advertisers might think is "a mismatch."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/12562620788/huffpost-moderates-comments-to-please-advertisers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/12562620788/huffpost-moderates-comments-to-please-advertisers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/12562620788/huffpost-moderates-comments-to-please-advertisers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-doesn't-actually-help-advertisers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121022/12562620788</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:22:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Latest Domain Seizures May Come Back To Bite One Of The Biggest Supporters Of Domain Seizures</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110416/01414613926/latest-domain-seizures-may-come-back-to-bite-one-biggest-supporters-domain-seizures.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110416/01414613926/latest-domain-seizures-may-come-back-to-bite-one-biggest-supporters-domain-seizures.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, this is amusing.  With last Friday's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/13475713911/feds-seize-poker-websites-founders-indicted.shtml">seizure</a> of top online poker site domain names, some are noticing that this might come back to haunt one of the biggest supporters of these domain seizures.  Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), which has been an incredibly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/1831597626.shtml">aggressive</a> player when it comes to copyright issues, was one of the key operations that helped the Feds <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/01402812935/full-affidavit-latest-seizures-again-suggests-homeland-security-is-twisting-law.shtml">seize some domain names</a> earlier this year.
<br /><br />
Yet, it turns out that one of the biggest sponsors of many of the MMA fighters <i>and</i> of StrikeForce -- which UFC recently bought -- was (you guessed it) <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/domain-seizure-advocates-eat-their-own-medicine-110416/?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TorrentfreakBits+%28TorrentFreak+-+Bits%29" target="_blank">one of the sites seized</a>, Full Tilt Poker.   Oops.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110416/01414613926/latest-domain-seizures-may-come-back-to-bite-one-biggest-supporters-domain-seizures.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110416/01414613926/latest-domain-seizures-may-come-back-to-bite-one-biggest-supporters-domain-seizures.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110416/01414613926/latest-domain-seizures-may-come-back-to-bite-one-biggest-supporters-domain-seizures.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oops</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110416/01414613926</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Putting Up A Paywall Just To Have Advertisers Pay To Take It Down?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/23544713756/putting-up-paywall-just-to-have-advertisers-pay-to-take-it-down.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/23544713756/putting-up-paywall-just-to-have-advertisers-pay-to-take-it-down.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's an interesting article at AdAge noting that while there are various paywalls going up, there are also a growing number of advertisers <a href="http://adage.com/article/digital/marketers-underwriting-access-paid-content/153081/" target="_blank">willing to pay to take down the paywall</a>... and they're willing to pay more than it would have cost to just advertise.  For example, Lincoln "paid" for a bunch of people to get the new NY Times' paywall for free, and Volvo is paying for a bunch of people to get free streaming video of Major League Baseball content.  What strikes me as amusing about all of this is that the folks putting up these paywalls keep insisting that "advertising alone" can't pay enough... and yet here they are more or less admitting that advertisers are happy to pay "enough," if they're given a promotional package that brings benefits to them.  Of course, the silly part of this is that part of that "benefit" to the advertisers is the <i>perception</i> that they're helping people take down the paywall.  If that's really true, perhaps we should set up a paywall here at Techdirt <i>just so</i> some advertisers can "pay" to take it down.  Any interest?  Let us know...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/23544713756/putting-up-paywall-just-to-have-advertisers-pay-to-take-it-down.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/23544713756/putting-up-paywall-just-to-have-advertisers-pay-to-take-it-down.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110403/23544713756/putting-up-paywall-just-to-have-advertisers-pay-to-take-it-down.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>suckers-bet?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110403/23544713756</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:08:22 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Advertisers Bailing On Murdoch's Paywalls As The Company Won't Reveal How Many People See Ads</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22065811174/advertisers-bailing-on-murdoch-s-paywalls-as-the-company-won-t-reveal-how-many-people-see-ads.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22065811174/advertisers-bailing-on-murdoch-s-paywalls-as-the-company-won-t-reveal-how-many-people-see-ads.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks back, we pointed to reports suggesting that Rupert Murdoch's paywall experiments with The Times and Sunday Times in London were a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/16545310903.shtml">disaster</a>, as nearly everyone -- readers, journalists, advertisers and publicists -- were bailing on the publications.  Soon after that, however, Murdoch's News Corp. announced plans to also put the big UK tabloid <i>News of the World</i> behind a paywall, with some suggesting that James Murdoch (Rupert's son, who is leading this effort) was seeing success with the other paywalls.  However, the evidence on that is still lacking.  Instead, we're hearing more and more reports that suggest serious trouble for the Murdochs, father and son, as they double down on an economically dangerous strategy.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=146096" target="_blank">Simon Dumenco</a> points us to a recent Bloomberg piece that quotes a guy from ad firm Starcom MediaVest, saying that they've <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-16/murdoch-banks-on-rooney-hooker-cricket-bribes-to-push-newspaper-paywalls.html" target="_blank">cut their ad spend on the Times and Sunday Times by <b>more than 50%</b></a> because News Corp. won't share with them traffic numbers:
<blockquote><i>
"We wouldn't put our money where we don't know the numbers, just as you wouldn't invest in a stock," [Starcom's Chris] Bailes said.
</i></blockquote>
Separately, Bailes notes that, thanks to competition, there are better places to spend their money:
<blockquote><i>
"I can go to the Guardian or CNN and get an audience... No one is indispensable."
</i></blockquote>
Of course, we were among the many, many voices that suggested <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100521/1807199537.shtml">James Murdoch brush up on his economics</a> before pursuing this strategy.  Now that he's doubling down, I'd have to, once again, suggest that he update his economic analysis.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22065811174/advertisers-bailing-on-murdoch-s-paywalls-as-the-company-won-t-reveal-how-many-people-see-ads.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22065811174/advertisers-bailing-on-murdoch-s-paywalls-as-the-company-won-t-reveal-how-many-people-see-ads.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22065811174/advertisers-bailing-on-murdoch-s-paywalls-as-the-company-won-t-reveal-how-many-people-see-ads.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-looking-good</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100926/22065811174</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:02:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft Debated Privacy vs. Advertisers In Internet Explorer... And Advertisers Won</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100802/13325810455.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100802/13325810455.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Wall Street Journal has a story detailing how Microsoft developers had worked out a plan to add serious privacy capabilities to Internet Explorer 8, which would specifically be designed to try to block tracking efforts by advertisers.  The default would recognize if a third-party service/cookie/script appeared on more than 10 visited websites and would then assume that was a tracking device of sorts.  The idea was to make this the default and make it easy for users to control their privacy settings.  However, when word filtered over to the side of Microsoft's business that sold advertising, folks there <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383530439838568.html" target="_blank">went ballistic and forced the IE team to change its plans</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Executives in Microsoft's new ad business were upset when the designers of Internet Explorer hatched the plan to block tracking activity, say people involved in the debate. At a meeting in the spring of 2008, Brian McAndrews, a Microsoft senior vice president who had been chief executive of aQuantive before Microsoft acquired it, complained to the browser planners. Their privacy plan, he argued, would disrupt the selling of Web ads by Microsoft and other companies, these people say.
</i></blockquote>
The folks on the other side realized that people were quickly moving away from IE, and thought (probably correctly) that the way to attract users was to actually (what an idea!) fight for the users and what <i>they wanted</i>, such as by implementing strong privacy tools.  After fighting it out back and forth in a series of meetings, the advertising folks won... and Internet Explorer will continue to lose users.  Admittedly, other browsers don't offer such privacy features standard either -- and Google clearly has the same conflict of interest to deal with.  However, these days, if you are concerned about privacy, using Firefox with NoScript, AdBlocker and various other privacy protection extensions can certainly help.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100802/13325810455.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100802/13325810455.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100802/13325810455.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>of-course-they-did</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100802/13325810455</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>