This murderous regime proudly brought to you by Oral B
Good ole smh.com.au.
They’re currently running a pre-roll ad for Oral B toothbrushes.
“There’s a revolution going on!” it burbles. “Millions of people are waking up and seizing power…” It then concludes “Join the revolution.”
So which video might you not put that ad in front of? How about a piece on the Iranian uprising? Or perhaps distressing footage of a shot, dying protestor.
This is fucking disgraceful. It’s still live BTW.
Someone at SMH might have just lost their job.
speechless.
Similar issue with ‘leveraging’ the Iran coverage has been reported by @tiphereth and has now been picked up by Sky News and the Guardian.
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/smc/103334
Really… what are these people thinking?
OMG
I think it’s an honest mistake – one of the drawbacks of having ‘relevant and targeted’ ads served on your website by a third party, I guess. It’s probably the result of whatever ad server SMH use looking for keywords in the article and serving ads that it thinks the readers of the article would be interested in. It’s an industry standard practice that causes unfortunate problems like this from time to time.
Sure, it’s distasteful, but I highly doubt this would be intentional. Nice find though.
it’s just a bloody pre-roll everyone … it’s just another oversight … nothing sinister, just incompetence.
btw this whole mumbo jumbo around targeted/contextual ads is ridsculous … i doubt 2% of web ads outside search are targeted … let alone pre-rolls.
Ah, the joy of having a 100% buy out of all video pre-rolls, you get to have your ad associated with all sorts of goodness. It’s the same on ninemsn when you click on one of the videos they bring in from 3rd parties like stupidvideos.com: ‘Before you watch this video of some poor guy getting hit in the nads, have a look at this ad from our sponsor’
Whilst these are never ideal, nothing pains me more than the auto play videos with sound that most portals now sell – talk about user experience! Auto play should never have sound!
I do tend to agree with Lance that it’ll just be a pre-roll sitting across chunks of the site which is horribly unfortunate placement (although there’s a strong argument that with news stories those placements should have a human eye vetting them). It seems unlikely to be auto-targeted, and I’m certain they haven’t put it there deliberately!
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Placement gaffes aside, the ad itself is dross, based on the most clichéd idea since celebrity endorsement.
Join the toothbrush revolution that isn’t… zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
As Tim said this is probably running across quite a few sites as a pre-roll today,1 out of hundreds of news stories, not to mention other sites across their network, making it almost impossible for the a human eye to be vetting everything. I’d also doubt that the news content teams would be communicating with the video campaign managers and sales execs who got it up there???
In a perfect world, controversy, political incorrectness, offensive content and anything that has the possibility to annoy or piss someone off wouldn’t run. Alternatively, we could come back to the real world and accept that coincidences happen?
Hm, seems to be okay to me – no ad before the clip at http://media.smh.com.au/world/.....98561.html
I looked at the ad and the clip and I think your outrage and indignation is, to say the least, a bit over the top.
Viva la polemica!
Hi Bob,
You’ve got the wrong link there – follow the one in the story above.
However, they have now pulled the Oral B ad and replaced it with a house ad.
But as you’re posting from within Fairfax, I suspect you already knew that.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
I think its just an unfourtunate oversight – I dont think anyone at Oral B would sieze the Iranian riots, including a protestor being shot, and think that it would be a good idea to try and align thier brand through the revolution similarities.
Its an unfourtunate mistake and they happen – I dont think that anyones going to get fired over it…
It happens in many other forms of media. Unfortunate.
Someone with foresight should have clicked, potentially the client or agency who would know they were running against news.
Not that hard.
Not sure the media owner can be entirely blamed.
I doubt this is anything to sinister. It is just another quite funny example of how computer can get things wrong.
Just like the video on an online news site last week that feature an underwear show – placed next to an article about a rapist with an underwear fetish. The unfortunate placement was just a matter of both the article and the video having a similar keyword and being deemed as related by the content management system. Nothing sinister or intentional.
Yes to some degree maybe there should be some human checking to get over these hurdles. But lets be honest here, no-one other than us marketing/PR types go into a blind frenzy about these things. Most people just don’t give a hoot and move on to the next page.
Dave
And speaking of human checking. Way too many grammatical errors in my last post. Reads like it was sub-edited by news.com
Dave
pre rolls on major sites are contextual now? really??
so an advertiser could only run next to stories about football or mining or the recession?
really??????
Yeah.
Expect to see ads for utes next to all PM stories.
And for toilet paper next to anything from A Current Affair.
I think Godwin Grech may have the inside information on the placement.
This was an unfortunate situation as the buy was across all news videos. Upon realisation of this we acted accordingly and took down the advertisement from the World News section.
We now feel this has been resolved and apologise if any offence was caused.
Best Wishes,
Paul Sigaloff – National Sales Director
Hi Paul,
Thanks for letting us know.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Hi Paul
I don’t think you have anything to apologise for here.
Mumbrella seem to have been the ones taking advantage of an unfortunate ad placement to promote their own agenda.
It is outrageous of Mumbrella to conclude
“Dr Mumbo’s correspondent concludes: “It would seem that Oral B sponsors or at least endorses the shooting of Iranian Protesters.””
If they believe that is true they obviously do not understand how advertising and media work. If they don’t believe it is true then why are they saying it.
@Anon 24.6.9 – I agree, particularly with this statement: ” It would seem Oral B sponsors or at least endorses the shooting of Iranian Protesters.” is an outrageous claim.
Dr Mumbo’s correspondent doesn’t give any indication that either they did or attempted to contact the SMH or the parent company of – or any subsidiary of – Oral B prior to publication to see if there was any truth whatsoever to the statement made that “Oral B sponsors or at least endorses the shooting of Iranian Protesters” as claimed.
Tim, you should unreservedly apologise for publishing this rubbish and find a new Dr Mumbo correspondent too.
Disgraceful.
Hi Rowan,
Thanks for your comments.
I suspect you’re perhaps misinterpreting what the person who pointed this out means. They do understand advertising and are in a position to know how it works.
But to the casual reader, not in the business, who doesn’t understand how advertising works, that’s how it could appear.
Which would be why Fairfax have taken it down.It was a very unfortunate placement that tended to link the advertiser with the content, and they’ve removed it.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Excelent.
This article has always read: “Look, an oral B ad happened to appear in a contextually akward spot, that’s pretty funny isn’t it…Discuss…”
Tim, I understand how advertising works, I think it is you that has missed my point here.
My comment is not about where and how the advertising was placed on the SMH.
My point is about the wording on your website.
Currently mumbrella.com.au is claiming that “It would seem that Oral B sponsors or at least endorses the shooting of Iranian Protesters.”
Are you seriously suggesting that a toothbrush company is sponsoring or endorsing the actions of the Iranian government in the shooting of it’s own citizens to suppress protestors after an election?
Really? Is that what you’re proposing? Because that’s what your website says.
I doubt very much, and I hope you don’t believe, that OralB does in fact sponsor or endorse the shooting of Iranian Protestors.
Hi Rowan,
I’ll let you into a secret. I don’t think our correspondent really does think that Oral B is sponsoring the putdown of the Iranian uprising. I think he’s using hyperbole to make his point. I suspect that most folk would interpret it that way.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Hi Tim
Thanks for letting me in on the secret.
I’ll let you in on one too, I don’t think so either.
I think it’s irresponsible to indicate/joke around as has been done, particularly when the situation is so serious.
Cheers
Rowan
Well said, Rowan.
What if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad subscribes to Mumbrella? This advert could be juts the thing that tips him over the edge.
It’s irresponsible.