Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
I'm torn, because I normally remove ads (like weight-loss, etc.) from my site that aren't about my fan hobby niches, but these ads are for a position I support.
Besides, these ads are obviously region targeted, as I am in Los Angeles and seeing ads for a California proposition. Would filtering it even do any good, as it only makes sense the rest of the country is seeing other ads I do not, and therefore can't filter?
Anyone else seeing these region-targeted political ads on their non-political sites today?
Newspaper, TV and Radio advertising is NOT the same as web site advertising. People understand, when they see a newspaper ad or a TV or radio commercial, that the commercial is separate from the media, and the media does not endorse the subject of the ad.
However, the separation between ads and content on a web page is not so clear, and most people who see an ad on a web page do not know the difference between the page's content and the ad.
That's why the publishers who are complaining here are doing so, there's no clear way for our audience to know that these ads are not being endorsed by, or are the opinions of, the web page's publisher.
I placed this advertiser in my competitive ad filter because the position advocated is deeply offensive to the readership on one of my sites. But since AdSense takes "several hours' to pull ads in the filter, today I pulled AdSense from all of my sites. Tonight, I'll check again and if the ad is gone, I will restore AS.
Anyhoo, I can just imagine that on certain hot-button issues, charities serving certain groups (victims for e.g.) that would find these adds not just annoying (as an implied endorsement), but actually harmful. Surely there should be filters.
The argument that everyone would opt out does not wash. You could increase the bid level so that some would allow adverts of any type for the revenue. Plenty of people would take the cash- and the reduced advertising space would imply the overall budget may not be higher simply by increasing CPC/CPM.
And anyway, even if everyone DID opt out, that is their moral right, regardless of G's profit.
I run a website for a regional arts organisation and also sell ad space for their printed magazine. Policy is to refuse political ads in print and I don't want to get into an arguement with somebody who says "you let us advertise on the website".
BTW… I am taking a cup of coffee, are you?
My site always gets lots of religous ads. I definitely do not endorse them, but happily take the money.
minds are used to see these ads in TV, Radio, and Internet - they will just ignore. Sit back, relax and let the time pass by.(emphasis added by me)
How nice. You display ads on your site and visitors will just ignore them. Where is your money in this business?
For everyone who was getting political ads yesterday and did not turn them off, are you still seeing them today?
I haven't found any on my sites today after adding the one URL to the filter yesterday. I haven't been anywhere else yet this morning.
But if I WERE and politics suddenly appeared on my site I would HOPE Google would add a DISCLAIMER to the offering:
"Paid Political Content Served by Google." or something like that. Else the publisher has one choice if they don't agree with the ads and that's to suspend the service until the objectionable material has disappeared.
And we've all read posts where someone just can't get Google to show good ads on a site and the publisher is advised by posters here to try something else because Google may not be a good fit.
Ballot propositions and political campaigns stir up emotions and this current crop of ads have certainly got the attention of a lot of people. It's like a temporary bad fit.
I think the bottom line here, even though it's obvious a lot of people don't want to read this right now, is that when you publish that Google code on your site, you're surrending that space to Google.
Plus, apparently Google doesn't view publishers as having strong personal attachment to their sites as many publishers obviously do.
With that in mind, we all have to make decisions accordingly.
But, again, I should get to make the definitions within my own website. That's what freedom of the press is all about.
In the U.S., "freedom of the press" comes from the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits government (Congress) from restricting the freedom of the press. It has nothing to do with a private business relationship such as between Google and a publisher.
Also, I used think Americans were so fond of free speech: this thread suggests the opposite.
Well, a lot of Americans are fond of free speech as long as it's something they agree with or want to hear.
Plus, in this case, some people are afraid others will think they endorse the speech because the ads appear on their site.
Secondly I am sure these ads are costly too – means much revenue for the publisher. So either way the AdSense publisher wins!
While they did pay something for impressions it wasn't nearly as much as I would have made for clicks on relevant ads. So don't say the publisher won.
My primary site attracts a mostly-liberal audience but it was filled with McCain-Palin ads for months, some of them through Google, others through TribalFusion and other CPM networks. There were some, though not as many, Obama ads as well as ads for California propositions and all kinds of local races. We got a total of one reader complaint.
People who are offended by politicking should look into emigrating to North Korea.
what is offensive about political ads?