No-one wants their brand to appear beside bad content. After some highly publicised such occurrences in 2017, marketers began looking more critically at online video options—a response dubbed the ‘adpocalypse’.

So, where exactly do we stand? Is it safe to delve back in?

YouTube’s AI Take-downs

Google is eager for us all to know they’ve improved YouTube services to better protect big-spending advertisers.

In 2017’s final quarter, they removed over 8 million videos for breaching guidelines (mostly spam or adult content).

More than three quarters of these downed videos were detected by automated computer analysis: they didnot have to wait for a user to flag the content. 76% of the machine-flagged videos were removed while the view-count was still zero.

That’s some impressive auto-detection. But does it mean your ads will only show where you want them?

Influencer immunity

Forbes contributor Fruzsina Eordogh says no. She cites a CNN report that the ads of over 300 companies have run on extremist content. She sees ‘the Adpocalypse continuing indefinitely’.

Eordogh says that ‘partnerships with individual creators are the safest bet for marketers’. She notes that it can be more time consuming but will reward with confidence in the content.

Did the Adpocalypse make you rethink your strategy?  Are influencers the answer to placement risks?

Copy Transmission is a Melbourne-based agency :: Better Brands. Loud & Clear.