Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.204.48.40

Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

Mature content: give advertisers the option.

     
11:22 pm on Sep 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 22, 2004
posts:8
votes: 0


As a new client, the PSA's on pages deemed offensive are driving me crazy. Most of the pages on my site are getting PSA's, yet if someone read or saw may of these pages in a movie, it would be "PG." An example is a political rant that includes the word abreviated as BS.
I'm guessing that many, if not most advertisers would not have a problem with of my content. Afterall, they buy ads on South Park, they do product placement in "r" rated films, they advertise on Howard Stern and so forth.
I know this isn't a moral stance on google's part, as they accept ads not only for pornography, but for criminal scams, such as bogus prescription drug sites on their own pages.

It seems to me that it would be very easy for advertisers to simply check off what kind of content they would be willing to be associated with and very easy for google to set up filters that would limit ads to the sort of sites that advertisers approved. Are you OK with minor use of profanity? Are you OK with heavy profanity? Are you OK with non-porn, non-educational discussion of adult themes such as sex and drugs? Are you ok with nudity?

And, why not? Are you ok with porn?

It seems to me that such a set up would be better for advertisers, much better for clients like myself and would make a lot more money for google. Any thoughts on why they aren't doing it?

11:51 pm on Sept 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 7, 2003
posts:442
votes: 0


It is a poor choice for google to not allow ads for things like gambling and porn (and all other fun types of things) Just kidding.

Porn itself makes up about 80% of all internet traffic each year, and google wants to ignore that? It is no mystery that porn is the single most popular subject on the internet bar none. Companies are willing to dish out a lot for ads to place them at the top of the advertiser list for "Porn".

I am sure they have reasons for not taking porn money but I will never understand them. I anticipate that they will be preassured into serving porn and other vice ads by shareholders. Google does not control what direction the company takes, it is now up to the shareholders, and they realize how much money can be made in vice advertising.

11:57 pm on Sept 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 22, 2004
posts:8
votes: 0


Well, as I mentioned, google DOES take porn money. And money from criminals engaged in fraud. That's what makes their refusal to deal with the word "BS" via adsense so perplexing.

To be clear, my site is no a porn site. I just through that in as part of the overall point. We're analogous to Stern or South Park.

12:01 am on Sept 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 14, 2003
posts:456
votes: 0


"It is no mystery that porn is the single most popular subject on the internet bar none."

I'll second that. I subscribe to the unfiltered version of WordTracker and I am amazed how porn dominates the top searches.

I would guess that most advertisers would want to be in content sites. I am an AdWords advertiser and I would if I had that type of site.

4:59 pm on Sept 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Oct 27, 2001
posts:10210
votes: 0


I am sure they have reasons for not taking porn money but I will never understand them.

There may be legal reasons, especially in the current U.S. political climate. But just as important, catering to the porn market could make it harder to sell AdWords/AdSense ads to the largely untapped market of mainstream corporate advertisers and advertising agencies. It could also make the company less attractive to Wall Street.

Anecdote: About.com used to be in the porn business, and some of its most popular sites were devoted to topics like "amateur erotica" and S&M. When About.com was acquired by Primedia, a large publisher of consumer and trade magazines, it sold off its adult sites as a condition of the merger. Why? I'd guess that was because the Madison Avenue culture was less tolerant of porn than the Internet culture was (and is), and the acquiring publisher wasn't willing to risk losing business at its mainstream properties for the sake of adult-oriented ads on racy photo galleries, sex diaries, and swingers' forums.