Saw this a few weeks ago, didn't think anybody would care. Changed my mind.
Corporate entities take action primarily as a function of how advantageous that action is to the profit/survival of the company. More at 11. Important quotes (to me) Is corporate speak for 'We're not getting enough return on our investment, somebody is getting richer off of our advertising than we are, fuck them.' I will not lose one iota of sleep if P&Gs profits only increase marginally instead of geometrically.Getting to a clean, productive media supply chain is the level playing field we all want and need
we can find a way to track and verify media accurately,” Pritchard added. “The days of giving digital a pass are over – it’s time to grow up. It’s time for action.”
I understand the instinct to parse the article for the pearls that affirm your righteous indignation and then move on, but there's more at work here. Google is, depending on the quarter, either the biggest or the second biggest company in the world and 90% of their money still comes from advertising. Facebook has the highest market cap in the world and 85% of their money still comes from advertising. Traditional media buys are governed by a number of standards and practices. Their effectiveness is audited. You get what you pay for or you sue for fraud. As a consequence, advertising in the land of broadcast is a known thing with known results. There's a show on TV and advertisers pay for it so they can put their commercials in front of your eyeballs. Online media buys are governed by fuckall. Their effectiveness is a black box. You pay what you get for or you get kicked off of Youtube. As a consequence, Youtube is a wasteland of hastily-constructed bot videos that respond to Google's closed search algorithm. The FCC under Trump is going to do exactly zero to regulate the Internet. Shock videos about chemtrails that people watch for five seconds by accident are profitable because of the way Youtube counts views - which means Youtube encourages shock videos about chemtrails. This "fake news" we're all talking about? It's a direct consequence of the way online content is monetized. This article is about the world's largest advertiser saying they're changing the way online content is monetized. It's absolutely true: "We're not getting enough return on our investment, someone is getting richer off our advertising than we are, fuck them." But corporations aren't moral. No less than Saint Friedman argued that a moral corporation was a bad corporation. So what we're left with is the invisible hand of the marketplace refining the efficiency of online ad buys. And they're used to traditional media, where they can verify they're getting what they're paying for. There is no aspect of your media landscape that does not run on advertising. And while you're not wrong in saying "a pox on all their houses" you're also not learning anything by doing it.