CNET Should Practice What They Preach

Today CNET ran an article titled "Blue-chip ads, red-light content".  The reporter, Elinor Mills, went to rather great lengths to call out the fact that AT&T, Apple, and Comcast had online advertising that showed up next to mature content on iFILM.  Her specific example was focused on footage contained within iFILM's "Girls, Girls, Girls" playlist and Fortune 500 advertisement that was running within that part of thier site.

To be fully transparent, One to One Interactive buys online media for Comcast Corporate.  We were the ones that included iFILMs in the media plan currently in question.  In the event that a media partner may have mature content, such as iFILM, One to One Interactive secures contractual assurances that our client advertisements will not run next to said content.   I would assume that those agencies representing AT&T and Apple have the same measures in place. 

When this particular issue came up, our media planners quickly called iFILM, who took full responsibility, and quickly began to remove our client's ads in those section.  iFILM also provided an official statement from Roger Jackson, vice president of content and programming, for One to One to share with our client:

"IFILM is implementing a software-based fix this week to resolve the problem so even search results pages will not have any mature content in them that matches with an advertiser.

We are assuming it's a one-off bug and we are frankly astonished that the public has found a screen shot (of ads next to mature video clips) because we've spent thousands of hours as a company over several years coming up with systematic solutions to issues like this that keeps both our advertisers and our users happy."

This is the same quote they provided to CNET.  Regardless, CNET still decided to run with editorial that made it sound like major advertisers were blithely running their ads juxtaposed online video content of "arguably dubious taste".  She went on to report that this is the risk advertisers run as media sites capitalize on "user generated content--from blogs to podcasts to homemade video clips" and as ad buyers participate in networks in which they target a specific demographic.

Elinor---WAKE UP!! There is no story here (unless you are writing for The National Enquirer).  iFILM screwed up and they admitted it.  Regardless, you seemed hell bent to find a scandal.  Or maybe....(this is an even more interesting conspiracy theory)....CNET is hell bent on creating biased news that attacks its competition (iFILM vs. TV.com). 

Next time, you may want to spend time with your own employers sites before you start attacking others.  Below are a couple of examples of Fortune 500 advertisers running on CNET properties that have thier ads next to content of "arguably dubious taste" (click on pics to enlarge):

• Search results for the query "Sex" on CNET's Download.com: CNET Sponsor UPS Display ad appears above sponsor links for an adult escort review website, a legalize marijuana poll, and a list of mature/adult screen savers.
• Search results for the query "Suck" on CNET's Download.com: CNET Sponsor AMD display ad appears above sponsor links for DICK (on ebay.com), software to keep porn private, and link to a site with free chatrooms and webcams.
• Search results for the query "Sex" on CNET's TV.com: CNET Sponsor Verizon Display ad appears above sponsor links for the adult escort review website and a legalize marijuana poll that we found back on Download.com.
• GAMESPOT "Shooting the S*** with 50 Cent" Sponsorship: Lest we forget that CNET's GameSpot and MP3 sought out our client to partner with them on thier exclusive with 50 Cent for BulletProof (his game) and his new music video for Outta Control Remix last July.  The opportunity was turned down as the promotional graphic of 50 Cent holding a gun to another thugs head was deemed content of "arguably dubious taste".

Comments

[Jonathan Trenn]

Jeremi

I think your point is valid, but I think you're going overboard with the idea that Elinor Mills is looking for a scandal. Or a conspiracy theory type thing. The type of advertising misuces do happen - as you yourself pointed out with CNet.

I see it happen all the time. Earlier today, I was on MobHappy and Russell Buckley wrote a satirical piece on Kryptonite locks and their reaction to the pen scandal. Hilarious and on point. Down below, there were Adsense ads for Kryptonite.

Good call on this though.

[Jeremi Karnell]

Jonathan,

The conspiracy comment was meant as toung in cheek. However, I cant help but feel an amature hour "Woodward and Bernstien" notion was in Elinor's mind when she was writting this article. Maybe not....regardles its poor journalism.

[anonymous]

Thx...

I think the article could have been more legit if it was really talking about the risks advertisers face as user generated content grows and as advertisers want to be around this content. However, the angle that Ms. Mills took created more of a tabloid story than a real piece of editorial. It's a shame that Ms. Mills took the approach she did because it's an issue that needed to be seriously addressed.

- From another media planner that is stuck in this mess with you.

[colson]

I believe Elinor decided to be a nanny for all of us grown ups who would view mature content. The problem is that we don't need the safety blanket. We can make up our own minds on the subject. Noticably she has to make the "think of the children" argument which is patently absurd.

The most rediculous part of it is that if the person is mature enough to see the video - do you really think they care if there is an Apple, Verizon, or Comcast ad next to it? If your kid is sitting there watching mature films on the Internet - wouldn't that be indicitive of a problem that has nothing to do with the advertising at all? (rhetorical question)

This isn't reporting - it is outright personal bias that puts cNet at risk of presenting media bias.

I always found humor in advertising placed next to arguably questionable content but I never would hold the advertiser accountable for it. I might think the marketer is dumb if it has no relevance but it isn't something that I would be hostile to a business about.

OTO - I would demand a formal apology from cNet via your legal team.