EP237 - Brand Safety in PPC

1
00:00:00,100 --> 00:00:03,300
Hello, and welcome to this
week's episode of the PPC chat

2
00:00:03,300 --> 00:00:06,000
round up our second episode of
the year.

3
00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:09,000
How are you finding January?
I hope you've caught up.

4
00:00:09,300 --> 00:00:12,400
I don't feel like I have, I feel
like I'm running behind a bus

5
00:00:12,400 --> 00:00:15,400
just riding too fast but yeah,
it's a good workout anyway.

6
00:00:16,600 --> 00:00:19,800
Anyway, in today's episode, we
have Julie taken us on another

7
00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:23,000
great topic.
Talking about brand safety in

8
00:00:23,000 --> 00:00:24,500
PPC.
Yeah.

9
00:00:24,600 --> 00:00:27,400
Very important topic.
You know, those of news going

10
00:00:27,400 --> 00:00:31,400
on, loads of different, kind of
web side, the Internet is very

11
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:35,900
busy and being able to keep safe
in being able to do exclusions

12
00:00:35,900 --> 00:00:38,500
properly, especially with
displaying programmatic.

13
00:00:38,500 --> 00:00:42,300
And those kind of, you know,
media, buying platforms, being

14
00:00:42,300 --> 00:00:45,300
able to actually really ensure
that your brand is showing

15
00:00:45,300 --> 00:00:49,200
against a site that has your
similar values that is not kind

16
00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:51,100
of porn sites.
That is not, you know,

17
00:00:51,300 --> 00:00:54,100
controversial kind of new sites
news that you're not necessarily

18
00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:56,400
you know in line with or agree
with.

19
00:00:56,700 --> 00:00:59,800
Yeah you want to be really
really really careful about.

20
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:02,400
What your side show against, and
really be on top of brand

21
00:01:02,400 --> 00:01:04,200
safety.
So, we talked about the

22
00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:06,800
platforms where the clients are
worried about this, the

23
00:01:06,800 --> 00:01:10,100
platforms are doing this well or
not doing this, well, how we

24
00:01:10,100 --> 00:01:13,500
keep on top of this and how you
work with brands on it?

25
00:01:13,500 --> 00:01:15,400
So yeah.
Hope you enjoyed the chat.

26
00:01:24,500 --> 00:01:27,800
Hello and a warm, welcome to
this episode of the PPC chat

27
00:01:27,800 --> 00:01:30,200
Roundup a podcast way.
I round up the Twitter

28
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:32,600
discussion that happens on
Tuesdays at 5 p.m.

29
00:01:32,600 --> 00:01:34,700
GMT.
I'm your host annual, I'm

30
00:01:34,700 --> 00:01:37,300
recording from my studio here in
London UK.

31
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:40,800
And I use this platform to share
not just expert but also my

32
00:01:40,800 --> 00:01:43,900
ideas and considered best
practices about paid media and

33
00:01:43,900 --> 00:01:46,000
the direction, the digital
industry is going.

34
00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:48,000
Going in.
So if you want to keep up to

35
00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:51,000
date with my tips and tricks in
the industry, and get the latest

36
00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:54,200
on the podcast that has been
called your go-to if you don't

37
00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:57,500
make it to the PPC chat live
discussions and even if you do

38
00:01:57,900 --> 00:02:00,000
then like follow share and
retweets on.

39
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,200
That's right.
Twitter with my handle the

40
00:02:02,200 --> 00:02:05,500
marketing, a new or join us on
our LinkedIn Group, which is the

41
00:02:05,508 --> 00:02:09,500
PPC chat Roundup podcast, or if
you're on Instagram, why don't

42
00:02:09,500 --> 00:02:12,700
you check us out at PPC, chat on
the score, Round Up to get

43
00:02:12,700 --> 00:02:16,700
quotes and Snippets from our
previous episodes, So we have

44
00:02:16,700 --> 00:02:19,700
Julie taken us on a great topic
as I mentioned earlier on

45
00:02:19,700 --> 00:02:23,100
talking about brand safety in
PPC.

46
00:02:23,100 --> 00:02:25,700
So how do you do that with
clients are your clients worried

47
00:02:25,700 --> 00:02:29,500
about these kind of things.
Yeah, it looks like from first

48
00:02:29,500 --> 00:02:32,000
question, when Julie asked,
whether people are worried about

49
00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:34,400
this, whether their clients are
worried about this, I feel like

50
00:02:34,600 --> 00:02:37,900
I was very much in the minority
where none of my clients have

51
00:02:37,900 --> 00:02:39,500
really brought it to my
attention.

52
00:02:39,500 --> 00:02:42,200
Maybe they are worrying about it
but they just not letting us

53
00:02:42,500 --> 00:02:46,000
know just yet.
So yeah, loads of clients worry.

54
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:48,200
About this.
So if you are one of those of

55
00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:51,300
your clients is one of those,
this is a great chat to be

56
00:02:51,300 --> 00:02:54,000
listening to.
So Julie, Texas, insane, hello?

57
00:02:54,000 --> 00:02:56,600
And thank you for joining today.
We are going to be talking about

58
00:02:56,600 --> 00:02:59,800
brand safety and PPC.
But first, how we doing?

59
00:02:59,800 --> 00:03:02,800
And as I said earlier on, I was
like, I'm feel like I'm running

60
00:03:03,100 --> 00:03:06,900
behind the first speeding bus
that is this year.

61
00:03:07,100 --> 00:03:10,600
Great workout.
It's keeping me on my feet.

62
00:03:10,600 --> 00:03:12,800
Already, Gil gonna respond
saying, doing great.

63
00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:15,000
Hope everyone else is doing well
to Diana.

64
00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:18,100
Lena goes, I'm fine.
Ready for the second PPC chat of

65
00:03:18,100 --> 00:03:18,800
the.
Yes.

66
00:03:18,800 --> 00:03:22,100
So where are we today?
So we're we do device also joins

67
00:03:22,100 --> 00:03:26,100
us a morning PVC chat Farm doing
okay right back into the

68
00:03:26,100 --> 00:03:28,300
madness.
Yeah, tell me about it down.

69
00:03:28,300 --> 00:03:31,300
Patterson goes, Hello, friends,
took a break from Twitter for a

70
00:03:31,300 --> 00:03:35,400
bit but figured I'd start to
check in to these chats hair and

71
00:03:35,400 --> 00:03:39,300
there when I can and yeah, we're
happy that, you do Robert, Brady

72
00:03:39,300 --> 00:03:42,300
goes, I only use Twitter fire
tweetdeck and the PBC

73
00:03:42,300 --> 00:03:45,900
communities, all I pay attention
to too much other nonsense going

74
00:03:45,900 --> 00:03:47,400
on.
On tell me about it.

75
00:03:47,500 --> 00:03:50,100
Don Patterson goes, that's what
I'm moving to more and more I

76
00:03:50,108 --> 00:03:53,500
took about two years of Twitter.
When the pandemic hit, then took

77
00:03:53,500 --> 00:03:55,200
a break with all the other
craziness.

78
00:03:55,200 --> 00:03:59,300
Figured I dip my toe back in the
water, but don't plan to use it

79
00:03:59,300 --> 00:04:02,000
much except for chats like this.
So, yeah.

80
00:04:02,000 --> 00:04:04,300
Are you also one of those are
Twitter is a mess.

81
00:04:04,700 --> 00:04:07,400
I highly recommend tweetdeck.
Literally, you just create

82
00:04:07,400 --> 00:04:10,100
different Columns of exactly
what she want to see.

83
00:04:10,300 --> 00:04:13,700
My columns are home.
The PPC chat handled, PPC, chat

84
00:04:13,700 --> 00:04:18,100
and Industry, PPC advertising.
It's SEO chat because I love

85
00:04:18,100 --> 00:04:21,800
following the SEO Community
women in marketing my profile,

86
00:04:21,899 --> 00:04:25,600
the PPC live UK profile.
Just my notifications and my

87
00:04:25,600 --> 00:04:29,900
bookmarks so they did anyone
that I don't follow am I don't

88
00:04:29,900 --> 00:04:32,300
see what's trending.
I don't see all the fact, the

89
00:04:32,300 --> 00:04:34,000
random tweets from random
people.

90
00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:38,100
It's very marketing focused
anyway Boris Becker's.

91
00:04:38,100 --> 00:04:40,800
Well goes doing great today.
After two months of basically

92
00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:44,000
living on a camping site, our
new kitchen got finally

93
00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:46,800
delivered today and will be set
up by the end of tomorrow.

94
00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:49,900
No more take out whoo-hoo.
I don't know whether the kids

95
00:04:49,900 --> 00:04:52,300
will find that to be fun though.
Boris I'm sure the kids have

96
00:04:52,300 --> 00:04:54,600
been having a field day getting
eaten like it.

97
00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:58,100
Well McDonald's or chicken
nuggets that kind of stuff

98
00:04:58,700 --> 00:05:00,200
nearly every day.
Who knows?

99
00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:03,500
But yeah, Dooley's PSA comes
about as usual.

100
00:05:03,500 --> 00:05:07,400
Very helpful going before we get
to questions, this chat is

101
00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:09,700
intended for PPC, Professionals
of all levels.

102
00:05:09,700 --> 00:05:13,500
So if you have something you
want to share, please do we are

103
00:05:13,500 --> 00:05:16,000
a friendly and supportive
Community, please.

104
00:05:16,200 --> 00:05:19,200
Be afraid to participate luck.
As are, of course, always

105
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:22,100
welcome lurkers and the
listeners of the podcast, people

106
00:05:22,100 --> 00:05:27,200
who are not a fan of Twitter,
you are welcome to this episode.

107
00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:30,100
So let's just get into question
1.

108
00:05:30,500 --> 00:05:33,300
So he asked brand, safety is a
big topic of discussion, so

109
00:05:33,300 --> 00:05:36,100
let's get to it.
Question, 1 is brand safety and

110
00:05:36,100 --> 00:05:39,300
major concern for the Brand's,
you are currently working with

111
00:05:39,500 --> 00:05:42,000
and why, or why not?
Kirk Williams goes.

112
00:05:42,000 --> 00:05:45,600
We see brands most concerned
about brand safety, when either

113
00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:49,200
one They're big enough to have a
brand people want to sue or

114
00:05:49,200 --> 00:05:53,200
cancel or to their super doubt
into how they want to think

115
00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:57,200
about their brand or their own
personal convictions and we met

116
00:05:57,200 --> 00:05:59,400
Gary goes.
It's ridiculous in 2023 for

117
00:05:59,400 --> 00:06:03,000
Google to have a black box,
trust us approach to their

118
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:06,400
display inventory.
Removing a blocking site from

119
00:06:06,400 --> 00:06:09,400
showing your ads, needs to be
possible with far.

120
00:06:09,400 --> 00:06:13,100
Less friction, especially as
debate is toxic in the arson

121
00:06:13,100 --> 00:06:15,900
clickbait engagement, Biz, Moto
and Ikes.

122
00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:18,100
Go go.
No response to question one

123
00:06:18,100 --> 00:06:20,600
saying I would say, although
most brands are probably

124
00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:23,700
conscious of brand safety, it's
pretty low in the priority list

125
00:06:23,700 --> 00:06:26,000
since the issue doesn't come up
a whole lot.

126
00:06:26,100 --> 00:06:30,000
Very rare to have a big branding
issue pop up for most of our

127
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:32,800
clients.
And yeah, we have same hair with

128
00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:35,100
me.
Christen a new member of the

129
00:06:35,100 --> 00:06:36,900
community.
She introduced herself earlier

130
00:06:36,900 --> 00:06:39,400
on, she was very welcomed into
this community.

131
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:42,900
Kristen goes, hi.
All I can understand the concern

132
00:06:42,900 --> 00:06:45,200
of keeping the Integrity of a
brand solid, when the

133
00:06:45,207 --> 00:06:47,900
opportunities.
For it to show across the

134
00:06:47,900 --> 00:06:51,000
internet are vast.
This is why I'm very strict

135
00:06:51,000 --> 00:06:54,700
about the creative we deploy.
So Google can't create them for

136
00:06:54,700 --> 00:06:58,100
us and then we have Julia voice
responding to question ones and

137
00:06:58,100 --> 00:07:01,000
absolutely it's a different
flavor for public sector.

138
00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:04,400
But all my clients are very
concerned about brand safety on

139
00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:07,300
any platform protecting their
brand and partnering with

140
00:07:07,300 --> 00:07:11,400
creators that are in harmony
with their values than Patterson

141
00:07:11,400 --> 00:07:14,900
response saying it's definitely
a concern, but I often wonder if

142
00:07:14,900 --> 00:07:18,200
there's more I should be doing.
In to watch or manage it.

143
00:07:18,200 --> 00:07:20,600
Hope you all have some insights
in that regard.

144
00:07:20,800 --> 00:07:24,100
John Keegan response saying in
traditional sem no wedding,

145
00:07:24,100 --> 00:07:27,400
YouTube ddnp Max etcetera.
It is incredibly concerning

146
00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:31,300
major International and domestic
events have wreaked.

147
00:07:31,300 --> 00:07:34,200
Havoc leading us pulling,
placements, left and right.

148
00:07:34,500 --> 00:07:38,000
Not to mention all of Twitter.
Wow, there is Chase response.

149
00:07:38,000 --> 00:07:39,700
Same brand.
Safety is massive concern.

150
00:07:39,700 --> 00:07:43,100
For most of my clients, where
the medical btb or even big

151
00:07:43,100 --> 00:07:46,800
entertainment brands most
require acts of Congress, just

152
00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:50,400
to approve some copy in medical.
It's even worse.

153
00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:54,600
Yeah, I can imagine Julie advice
goes OMG, D-League of companies.

154
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:58,700
I actually need to send a copy
to a board for approval while

155
00:07:58,700 --> 00:08:02,700
aboard, but sure talk to me
about optimizing our ad copy in

156
00:08:02,700 --> 00:08:06,100
real time, right?
Active response team does it

157
00:08:06,100 --> 00:08:09,100
happen every time you set up all
tweaked ad copy.

158
00:08:09,100 --> 00:08:13,500
So yeah, that's in response to a
Lawrence needing act of Congress

159
00:08:13,500 --> 00:08:16,000
just to prove that copy Lawrence
goes.

160
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:17,700
Oh yeah.
Some Brands require legal to

161
00:08:17,700 --> 00:08:21,700
review any image or copy that's
put anywhere so yeah you can't

162
00:08:21,700 --> 00:08:25,100
even tweak a certain things and
active response to that saying

163
00:08:25,100 --> 00:08:28,100
oh I remember working with
volatile assets trading.

164
00:08:28,400 --> 00:08:31,500
They literally had a team of
legal compliance officers

165
00:08:31,500 --> 00:08:35,299
managing and reviewing copies.
We have Melissa McKee responding

166
00:08:35,299 --> 00:08:38,299
to question one saying yes yes
yes our Enterprise B2B clients

167
00:08:38,299 --> 00:08:41,700
are very strict brand guidelines
that must be followed this often

168
00:08:41,900 --> 00:08:45,800
precludes the use of pmax
Discovery, YouTube gdn Etc.

169
00:08:46,300 --> 00:08:49,300
First Response saying, for some
brand it is, I just started

170
00:08:49,300 --> 00:08:52,500
working with a big Telco and
they are extremely concerned

171
00:08:52,500 --> 00:08:56,000
about brand safety for others.
It is not at the Forefront,

172
00:08:56,300 --> 00:08:57,900
Julia herself response saying
yeah.

173
00:08:57,900 --> 00:09:01,000
Brand safety is not a huge
topic, unless client is doing

174
00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:04,400
display of some kind and even
then, they don't often bring it

175
00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:07,300
up as a huge concern.
I'm concerned about it though

176
00:09:07,300 --> 00:09:11,100
and try to do what I can to keep
my clients Brands away from an

177
00:09:11,100 --> 00:09:14,000
unsafe placements.
Yeah, even though they don't

178
00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:16,200
care about it, I think those
kind of reports should be fed

179
00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:17,900
back.
To the clients to show them,

180
00:09:18,300 --> 00:09:22,000
especially how much work it does
take for paid search manager, to

181
00:09:22,000 --> 00:09:25,600
ensure that a client's brand is
performing, well, because during

182
00:09:25,600 --> 00:09:29,300
that whole, yeah, it's like
saving it from sites that are a

183
00:09:29,300 --> 00:09:32,300
little bit dodgy.
I'm sure helps a lot of for

184
00:09:32,500 --> 00:09:34,900
conversion rate, click-through
rates and those kind of

185
00:09:34,900 --> 00:09:37,600
efficiency metrics.
So, I'll say my clients aren't

186
00:09:37,600 --> 00:09:39,200
really concerned about that
right now.

187
00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:41,800
Should that be worrisome?
Should they be concerned about

188
00:09:41,800 --> 00:09:45,100
it and bars goes, it's never a
concern until you end up getting

189
00:09:45,100 --> 00:09:48,500
cold out on social.
As for running ads on Britt Bart

190
00:09:48,600 --> 00:09:51,900
or some other BS site.
Johnny response saying if you

191
00:09:51,908 --> 00:09:55,700
are running on the gdn or using
DV 360 then it should be on

192
00:09:55,700 --> 00:09:58,200
their radar.
Ultimately depends on the kind

193
00:09:58,200 --> 00:10:01,400
of activity you are running.
If it's paid search or Facebook

194
00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:05,100
I'd be more concerned about ad
fraud and Julia herself as well

195
00:10:05,100 --> 00:10:07,200
response saying.
I think it can be one of those

196
00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:10,500
things where it was not on
anyone's radar and then their

197
00:10:10,500 --> 00:10:14,300
ads shows up next to some truly
offensive or awful content and

198
00:10:14,300 --> 00:10:18,000
you get a screenshot and then it
Huge, big deal and learn skills

199
00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:21,600
this, if they see it somewhere
bad, also some of my clients

200
00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:23,500
care but it's not on their
Radar.

201
00:10:23,500 --> 00:10:27,700
Really, if you have clients in a
highly regulated Industries or

202
00:10:27,700 --> 00:10:31,400
they are big household name.
It becomes a bigger issue.

203
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:33,700
Yeah.
And Julie goes none of us wants

204
00:10:33,700 --> 00:10:37,100
to get that email or text with
the screenshot of the, add text

205
00:10:37,100 --> 00:10:41,300
to hateful, terrible offensive
content along with how did this

206
00:10:41,300 --> 00:10:43,600
happen.
Yeah, you do not want that

207
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:46,200
email, and then we have some
responding to questions.

208
00:10:46,300 --> 00:10:49,500
Wanting absolutely brand.
Safety is a significant concern

209
00:10:49,600 --> 00:10:52,400
for most clients Ashton clock,
response question.

210
00:10:52,400 --> 00:10:55,700
Once a most of my clients have
never expressed an explicit

211
00:10:55,700 --> 00:10:59,700
concern over brand safety, other
than use this messaging, if that

212
00:10:59,700 --> 00:11:03,400
counts, but we still build our
campaigns and set up accounts

213
00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:05,600
with it.
In mind example, adding

214
00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:10,000
children's YouTube channels as
an account level exclusion as a

215
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:13,600
very good tactic, ran scholar in
response to question once a not

216
00:11:13,600 --> 00:11:16,200
so much of a priority for my
clients but I can certainly

217
00:11:16,400 --> 00:11:18,100
Tenley.
See why it would be important

218
00:11:18,100 --> 00:11:22,000
for big Brands running display
campaigns and then we have actor

219
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:24,200
responding to question one
saying matters.

220
00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:27,700
A lot of for some of their
highly regulated but I'm curious

221
00:11:27,900 --> 00:11:30,900
whether we are talking about
wrong placements, or wrong

222
00:11:30,900 --> 00:11:34,200
messaging and AD copy.
Yeah, I think we're wrong place.

223
00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:36,900
Wrong placement, definitely
delivers response brand.

224
00:11:36,900 --> 00:11:41,500
Safety is a category term both
and more than both apply.

225
00:11:41,900 --> 00:11:45,800
I tell response saying I see.
So basically our mmpp, see where

226
00:11:45,800 --> 00:11:49,200
reputation nations are not only
influenced by human minds but

227
00:11:49,200 --> 00:11:52,800
also Tech then Julie takes us on
to question 2.

228
00:11:52,800 --> 00:11:56,400
Saying, what is your most
pressing brand safety concern or

229
00:11:56,400 --> 00:11:59,300
issues today?
Kirk Williams respond, saying

230
00:11:59,300 --> 00:12:02,500
how difficult it is for Brands,
who care about brand safety to

231
00:12:02,500 --> 00:12:06,400
not appear in the places.
They don't want to appear in

232
00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:09,600
Boris response saying
proliferation makes it harder

233
00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:12,000
and harder to stay on.
Stay, on top of things less

234
00:12:12,000 --> 00:12:14,500
Control.
Plus the algorithm knows best

235
00:12:14,500 --> 00:12:18,800
equals two more opportunities.
To show next to less-than-ideal

236
00:12:19,100 --> 00:12:22,700
content, delivers respond saying
I'd say Partners placements and

237
00:12:22,700 --> 00:12:25,200
messaging.
There are some concerns about

238
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:29,400
media dollars going to unsavory
platforms versus individual

239
00:12:29,400 --> 00:12:32,600
placements but mostly it's the
tried-and-true.

240
00:12:32,600 --> 00:12:35,600
Does this message.
This crater or this placement

241
00:12:35,600 --> 00:12:38,000
aligned with our vision for
ourselves.

242
00:12:38,300 --> 00:12:41,500
John Keegan response saying
misinformation or blatant lies

243
00:12:41,500 --> 00:12:45,000
and seemingly less, and less
amount of Regulation by

244
00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:47,800
platforms to fight it.
It thanks Elon for making it

245
00:12:47,800 --> 00:12:50,600
worse.
Diana Lena response in being

246
00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:52,300
sure.
We don't appear on unsafe,

247
00:12:52,300 --> 00:12:56,700
placements, or that our ad copy
is not on brand style-wise.

248
00:12:57,100 --> 00:12:58,800
And then, yeah, Tim hollering
response to question.

249
00:12:58,800 --> 00:13:01,500
One saying, I'd say brand,
safety is important to more than

250
00:13:01,500 --> 00:13:05,100
half of my client specifically
fintech crypto consumer

251
00:13:05,100 --> 00:13:07,500
Healthcare and local government
less.

252
00:13:07,500 --> 00:13:10,400
So, for more e-comm retail
clients in wall art,

253
00:13:10,600 --> 00:13:14,300
manufacturing apparel, excetera
Julie, response to question 2,

254
00:13:14,300 --> 00:13:16,100
saying the continued
obfuscation.

255
00:13:16,600 --> 00:13:19,800
Of placements is a big one,
green General, lack of

256
00:13:19,800 --> 00:13:23,300
transparency in platforms limits
on placement, exclusions

257
00:13:23,500 --> 00:13:26,600
campaign types where you have
to, just take all the placements

258
00:13:26,600 --> 00:13:28,500
to get the ones you actually
want.

259
00:13:28,500 --> 00:13:31,300
Uh-huh.
P Max and yeah, bars response to

260
00:13:31,308 --> 00:13:33,900
that saying yes, that's exactly
what I'm thinking as well.

261
00:13:33,900 --> 00:13:37,600
The taking away, control comes
with increased risk of showing

262
00:13:37,600 --> 00:13:41,400
up on questionable, placements
or with auto-generated assets

263
00:13:41,700 --> 00:13:44,700
down partisan response saying.
Definitely, one of the reasons

264
00:13:44,700 --> 00:13:49,200
I've been incredibly has
Oughtn't to even consider P Max.

265
00:13:49,200 --> 00:13:52,100
Yes we will be very hesitant to
consider P Max for those kind of

266
00:13:52,100 --> 00:13:54,000
reasons.
Go gonna respond saying,

267
00:13:54,000 --> 00:13:57,400
ironically enough, our closest
brand safety concern last year

268
00:13:57,400 --> 00:13:59,800
was with a client who found one
of those.

269
00:13:59,800 --> 00:14:01,300
Terrible!
Google generated.

270
00:14:01,300 --> 00:14:06,300
Pmax videos placed on a totally
irrelevant Channel complete with

271
00:14:06,300 --> 00:14:08,900
childish music.
Google generated.

272
00:14:08,900 --> 00:14:12,400
Pmax video.
Oh, Lord against irrelevant

273
00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:15,400
Channel.
We had to Nuke that pretty

274
00:14:15,400 --> 00:14:18,800
quickly.
The client must have been quite

275
00:14:18,800 --> 00:14:22,100
pissed by that actor response to
that same.

276
00:14:22,100 --> 00:14:25,700
It looked totally shit when P
Max pulled way down matched

277
00:14:25,700 --> 00:14:30,100
images of products and was using
it for display and video.

278
00:14:30,100 --> 00:14:32,600
O Lord that does not sound like
a fun thing for p Max.

279
00:14:33,000 --> 00:14:36,400
Well no fun thing by P Max not
for p Max huh?

280
00:14:36,800 --> 00:14:39,100
Melissa Mickey response to
question 2 saying this along

281
00:14:39,100 --> 00:14:42,800
with unsavory content or lack of
moderating example.

282
00:14:42,800 --> 00:14:45,800
What has happened recently with
Twitter clients?

283
00:14:45,800 --> 00:14:50,200
Don't want to show up next to
hate speech or controversy, more

284
00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:52,500
response to that.
Yeah, but Twitter usage is

285
00:14:52,500 --> 00:14:56,500
higher than ever.
Yeah, Melissa goes LOL.

286
00:14:56,500 --> 00:14:58,000
Yeah.
They don't care about whether

287
00:14:58,000 --> 00:14:59,900
you're shooting against
irrelevant content.

288
00:14:59,900 --> 00:15:02,000
Yeah.
Just the engagement is great.

289
00:15:02,300 --> 00:15:04,800
Ashton Clark is sponsoring.
First thing that comes to mind

290
00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:08,500
is lack of visibility into
placements for p Max campaigns

291
00:15:08,500 --> 00:15:12,000
and the search Partners Network.
Other than that clients mostly

292
00:15:12,000 --> 00:15:14,700
seem concerned about using the
right messaging and following

293
00:15:14,700 --> 00:15:18,400
brand guidelines more.
Anything else Melissa takes

294
00:15:18,400 --> 00:15:20,900
another answer to question, 2.
Same, the lack of transparency.

295
00:15:20,900 --> 00:15:23,800
Overall is a troubling trend for
our clients.

296
00:15:23,800 --> 00:15:27,500
They will pull out of channels
altogether if they lose too much

297
00:15:27,500 --> 00:15:30,000
control, learns, Chase response
to question 2.

298
00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:33,800
Same the videos Google makes in
P Max and placements are big

299
00:15:33,800 --> 00:15:36,400
ones.
Basically no brand who has

300
00:15:36,400 --> 00:15:40,700
branded safety concerns should
ever use any auto applies,

301
00:15:40,900 --> 00:15:44,800
especially since they can change
them, Julia voice response to

302
00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:47,700
that saying, well, and the fact,
Fact that it will fully make a

303
00:15:47,708 --> 00:15:50,100
video for you.
Who was in the product

304
00:15:50,100 --> 00:15:54,100
brainstorm when that came up
pretty much in sure, it won't

305
00:15:54,100 --> 00:15:59,700
get used by anyone without a
product production budget and

306
00:15:59,700 --> 00:16:02,300
actor response to question two
saying, I answered these as if

307
00:16:02,300 --> 00:16:05,600
I'm the owner and Advertiser in
PPC, I would never want it to

308
00:16:05,600 --> 00:16:09,100
affect my Brand's image, and
we'll try to look at it closely

309
00:16:09,200 --> 00:16:11,900
at every aspect.
There are aspects of the our

310
00:16:11,900 --> 00:16:14,100
control and not later.
Ones are bigger.

311
00:16:14,100 --> 00:16:18,000
Pains in the eyes.
Samara heart response.

312
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:21,200
Question to saying Display
Network ads, going into black

313
00:16:21,200 --> 00:16:23,600
hole.
Jillian, takes us on to question

314
00:16:23,600 --> 00:16:24,800
3.
Saying, do you think some

315
00:16:24,800 --> 00:16:27,400
platforms handle brand, safety
better than others?

316
00:16:27,400 --> 00:16:29,700
Who is the best?
Who is the worst?

317
00:16:29,700 --> 00:16:31,800
They are.
Here's where we met my shame.

318
00:16:31,800 --> 00:16:35,300
Some Brands I'm platforms hair
to answer that.

319
00:16:35,300 --> 00:16:38,300
We've got Lawrence going.
Google is still one of the best.

320
00:16:38,300 --> 00:16:41,600
Since you do not have to use the
campaign's, that will get you

321
00:16:41,608 --> 00:16:44,200
into trouble.
They still have a lot of control

322
00:16:44,200 --> 00:16:46,800
in other campaign types
platforms, like Spotify.

323
00:16:46,800 --> 00:16:49,300
You cannot control what music or
podcasts.

324
00:16:49,300 --> 00:16:53,800
Your ads show up with currently,
but how do you do targeting?

325
00:16:53,900 --> 00:16:56,100
That's very interesting.
But yeah, Tim Heller and

326
00:16:56,100 --> 00:16:58,600
response to question to same.
Yeah, I've noticed it falls on

327
00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:01,400
the three buckets things, you
can't control internally.

328
00:17:01,400 --> 00:17:03,200
Why?
Internal client prep things.

329
00:17:03,200 --> 00:17:05,599
You can't control during
campaign, build.

330
00:17:05,599 --> 00:17:08,300
And lastly things you couldn't
have predicted without

331
00:17:08,300 --> 00:17:11,800
experiencing it first.
The unpredictable things are the

332
00:17:11,800 --> 00:17:15,099
most rare.
In my opinion, he continues

333
00:17:15,099 --> 00:17:18,200
lately, it seems I More issues
with automation getting in the

334
00:17:18,200 --> 00:17:21,599
way of brand safety, more than
the three things above though.

335
00:17:21,800 --> 00:17:26,800
Even if I follow a platforms
TOS, terms of security automated

336
00:17:26,800 --> 00:17:30,500
disapprovals are, like, and
expected hurdle to jump,

337
00:17:30,500 --> 00:17:34,000
nowadays.
It didn't used to be like that.

338
00:17:34,000 --> 00:17:38,100
Yeah, that's quite a pickle.
You have Julie given another

339
00:17:38,100 --> 00:17:39,200
chance to question to our
beliefs.

340
00:17:39,200 --> 00:17:41,700
And I have long said that the
Google Display Network is full

341
00:17:41,700 --> 00:17:43,500
of really, really bad
placements.

342
00:17:43,700 --> 00:17:45,500
I think she meant to answer
question 3 hair.

343
00:17:45,700 --> 00:17:49,200
Most Are just terrible sights,
not brand, safety concerns, but

344
00:17:49,200 --> 00:17:53,400
the limit exclusions to a
10,000, which sounds like a lot

345
00:17:53,400 --> 00:17:55,300
until you run a campaign for a
while.

346
00:17:55,300 --> 00:17:58,900
With lots of volume cock respond
saying, I've wished for

347
00:17:58,900 --> 00:18:02,900
rule-based exclusion option for
specific words in placements,

348
00:18:02,900 --> 00:18:06,300
for a long time, Julie goes
Google, doesn't want to talk

349
00:18:06,300 --> 00:18:10,600
about the gdm because if it did
it would have to admit so much

350
00:18:10,600 --> 00:18:15,100
of its utter garbage.
Yep, I said it ha ha Julie's not

351
00:18:15,100 --> 00:18:17,500
holding back here.
Is a response in obviously

352
00:18:17,500 --> 00:18:21,100
audience dependent, but I've
taken to Turning ads off, Coco

353
00:18:21,100 --> 00:18:25,400
melon or SpongeBob by default.
Regardless of exclusions, this

354
00:18:25,400 --> 00:18:29,200
YouTube channels in particularly
always end up on placement list.

355
00:18:29,200 --> 00:18:32,200
Wow, Kirk responds, average age
of the kid watching.

356
00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:34,500
KOCO melon would support this
decision.

357
00:18:34,500 --> 00:18:38,100
Not even like they're old enough
to tell their parents about the

358
00:18:38,100 --> 00:18:41,500
ad.
They saw exactly cook Fred's.

359
00:18:41,500 --> 00:18:44,300
A goes having to explain to a
very serious B2B client why

360
00:18:44,300 --> 00:18:47,500
they're big data ads with show.
Going on, Thomas, the Tank

361
00:18:47,500 --> 00:18:51,000
Engine was an eye-opener
although I had heard Thomas

362
00:18:51,100 --> 00:18:56,900
moonlights as a data analyst.
So who knows Richard?

363
00:18:56,900 --> 00:18:58,900
Fergie response in as an angry
colleague.

364
00:18:58,900 --> 00:19:02,800
Once put it to our Google rep.
You limit us to 10,000

365
00:19:02,800 --> 00:19:07,500
exclusions, but there is no
limit to the amount of shit on

366
00:19:07,600 --> 00:19:10,800
the internet, who excuse my
French here today, but people do

367
00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:15,100
not play nice when talking about
Brian safety Diner, Lena

368
00:19:15,100 --> 00:19:17,800
response saying hearts.
Say you need to answer question

369
00:19:17,800 --> 00:19:19,800
3.
I would sing Pinterest would be

370
00:19:19,800 --> 00:19:23,100
the safest place on the worst.
It can be many depending on what

371
00:19:23,100 --> 00:19:26,900
your brand promotes, I don't see
any AD platform in particular

372
00:19:26,900 --> 00:19:31,000
focusing, its efforts on brand
safety more than on anything

373
00:19:31,000 --> 00:19:33,100
else.
Boris response to question 3

374
00:19:33,100 --> 00:19:35,400
saying, I don't think any
particular platform is doing

375
00:19:35,400 --> 00:19:39,400
this incredibly well, why it is
just so expensive to employ

376
00:19:39,600 --> 00:19:41,500
moderators.
So they like to pass

377
00:19:41,500 --> 00:19:45,900
responsibility onto their users,
Melissa respond, same LinkedIn

378
00:19:45,900 --> 00:19:49,600
and Google are probably still
the best as Lauren says, you

379
00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:52,500
don't have to use the
programmatic campaign types in

380
00:19:52,500 --> 00:19:55,400
Google yet.
Being used to be good until they

381
00:19:55,400 --> 00:19:58,100
added for stopped in to the
Audience Network.

382
00:19:58,100 --> 00:20:01,700
Now, that's problematic.
Yes, Lawrence response.

383
00:20:01,700 --> 00:20:04,400
Yeah, when Microsoft force that
they lost their Sports and

384
00:20:04,400 --> 00:20:05,200
Melissa goes.
Yep.

385
00:20:05,200 --> 00:20:08,500
Incredibly bad.
Move on their part from what was

386
00:20:08,500 --> 00:20:11,700
a platform with great controls
and they are.

387
00:20:11,700 --> 00:20:14,700
We have Melissa continuing
answer to question 3 saying West

388
00:20:14,700 --> 00:20:18,300
is probably Twitter.
Now along with maybe Tick-Tock

389
00:20:18,400 --> 00:20:22,100
although we don't use Tick-Tock
for B2B, Twitter is a hot mess.

390
00:20:22,400 --> 00:20:24,700
Julia voice response question, 3
saying the West.

391
00:20:24,700 --> 00:20:26,700
So these have changed hands over
time.

392
00:20:26,700 --> 00:20:27,800
Right now.
It's Twitter.

393
00:20:28,000 --> 00:20:31,500
It's just a mess display.
Not just gdn is pretty rough.

394
00:20:31,700 --> 00:20:33,900
YouTube needs to do more and
Tick.

395
00:20:33,900 --> 00:20:37,100
Tock is a fully automated Black
Box.

396
00:20:37,100 --> 00:20:40,100
Fun times Gil gonna response to
question, three, same, I don't

397
00:20:40,100 --> 00:20:42,200
really look at it from a
platform perspective.

398
00:20:42,200 --> 00:20:45,500
Nearly every platform has
opportunities, of course,

399
00:20:45,500 --> 00:20:47,300
anytime.
I'm there's a black box.

400
00:20:47,300 --> 00:20:50,100
There is less control.
Our job as marketers.

401
00:20:50,100 --> 00:20:54,100
Means our whole job is
identifying limitations and

402
00:20:54,100 --> 00:20:57,900
making sure we place correctly
Julie.

403
00:20:57,900 --> 00:20:59,400
Tank is another on to question 3
saying.

404
00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:01,900
It's super interesting that
yeah, no one is mentioned in

405
00:21:01,900 --> 00:21:04,000
Facebook or Instagram has been
the best or worst.

406
00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:08,100
Twitter is a hot mess right now
from a brand safety perspective,

407
00:21:08,200 --> 00:21:11,100
Tim Halloran goes oddly enough.
I never worry too much about

408
00:21:11,100 --> 00:21:14,500
brand safety on Facebook or
Instagram, maybe that's naive,

409
00:21:14,500 --> 00:21:16,800
but if I'm certain of my
audience, Then I don't

410
00:21:16,800 --> 00:21:20,900
necessarily care if their feed
is full of garbage friends and

411
00:21:20,900 --> 00:21:24,200
Page his cock response.
I think this is because

412
00:21:24,200 --> 00:21:26,600
placements are based on audience
data, right?

413
00:21:26,600 --> 00:21:31,000
So, it's not like the placement
of it itself can ever really be

414
00:21:31,000 --> 00:21:32,800
a problem.
That's interesting.

415
00:21:33,100 --> 00:21:34,900
Julie goes.
I think you're less likely to

416
00:21:34,900 --> 00:21:38,000
get a screenshot of an ad.
Next to something on Facebook or

417
00:21:38,000 --> 00:21:40,800
IG because the other stuff in
the feed is already based on

418
00:21:40,800 --> 00:21:44,700
that user's interests, Etc.
So, even if your ad is next to

419
00:21:44,700 --> 00:21:48,600
something, vile the person Is
likely not offended by it maybe

420
00:21:49,000 --> 00:21:50,000
and cargos.
Yeah.

421
00:21:50,000 --> 00:21:51,300
I think that's it.
Exactly.

422
00:21:51,300 --> 00:21:53,900
It's not like it's the
advertisers fault for that users

423
00:21:53,900 --> 00:21:57,100
preference.
Facebook is more likely to take

424
00:21:57,100 --> 00:22:01,000
the blame and has G device goes.
I'm certain that these traits

425
00:22:01,000 --> 00:22:05,200
are headlines are making room
for Zuckerberg to get away with

426
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:06,300
murder.
Yeah.

427
00:22:06,300 --> 00:22:08,900
With all the stuff that, you
know, mosque is doing right now.

428
00:22:08,900 --> 00:22:12,500
I wonder what Zuckerberg is up
to give.

429
00:22:12,500 --> 00:22:15,400
Another answer to question.
Three girls respond saying that

430
00:22:15,400 --> 00:22:17,900
said Tik-Tok Is the worse.
It's gonna get banned.

431
00:22:17,900 --> 00:22:19,800
It's so bad.
What?

432
00:22:19,900 --> 00:22:22,100
Really interesting.
It's a good thing.

433
00:22:22,100 --> 00:22:24,100
I never really paid attention to
it.

434
00:22:24,700 --> 00:22:28,400
Christmas wants to question to
sing, one of my concerns comes

435
00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:32,400
from Google's push for us to
trust, their AI creative without

436
00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:37,500
giving us visibility into where
ADS show such as in performance.

437
00:22:37,500 --> 00:22:40,000
Max phrase, Andrews respond
saying yes.

438
00:22:40,000 --> 00:22:42,900
Hey guys, I have definitely
concerns about Twitter at the

439
00:22:42,900 --> 00:22:44,800
moment.
Brand safety wise, the

440
00:22:44,800 --> 00:22:48,100
combination of questionable.
All accounts and users who have

441
00:22:48,100 --> 00:22:52,300
had accounts re-enabled has made
Twitter a mess, Christian

442
00:22:52,300 --> 00:22:54,600
response to question three
saying, I don't think there's

443
00:22:54,600 --> 00:22:57,200
any one platform, which is
better than the other when it

444
00:22:57,200 --> 00:23:00,900
comes to Brand safety.
Ashton clock, respond saying,

445
00:23:00,900 --> 00:23:03,700
Google and Microsoft ad, still
let you add placements,

446
00:23:03,700 --> 00:23:06,500
exclusions and negatives for
search campaign.

447
00:23:06,500 --> 00:23:10,100
So I guess I'd say those two
platforms, do it better than

448
00:23:10,100 --> 00:23:12,600
others?
Other than opting out of

449
00:23:12,600 --> 00:23:15,400
audience networks.
It doesn't feel like there's as

450
00:23:15,400 --> 00:23:19,900
much And on LinkedIn and
Facebook Julian and takes us on

451
00:23:19,900 --> 00:23:23,400
to question for wait, before we
answer that Fraser Andrews

452
00:23:23,400 --> 00:23:25,100
response to question three
saying, in terms of

453
00:23:25,100 --> 00:23:28,500
understanding of demographics,
there's a lot of spammy sales

454
00:23:28,700 --> 00:23:32,200
focused bits on Tech talks,
which I'm sure shouldn't be

455
00:23:32,200 --> 00:23:34,300
focused around younger
audiences.

456
00:23:34,900 --> 00:23:37,500
Julian Texas audience, question
for saying, are there any

457
00:23:37,500 --> 00:23:41,500
initiatives that you have
stopped and or plan to stop or

458
00:23:41,500 --> 00:23:45,200
pause due to Brand safety
concerns or any, that you've

459
00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:48,100
just decided?
Did not to do because of brand

460
00:23:48,100 --> 00:23:52,300
safety issues or concerns.
Actor response to question 3,

461
00:23:52,300 --> 00:23:55,400
saying, I delve in the realm of
outbound and PPC, and data

462
00:23:55,400 --> 00:23:59,100
privacy aspects of both from my
experience, nowadays, it's

463
00:23:59,100 --> 00:24:01,500
really tough to say.
I was talking with a client

464
00:24:01,500 --> 00:24:04,300
around, how we can pull in size
from clients, internal

465
00:24:04,300 --> 00:24:08,200
strategies and he said they are
mediators who do it.

466
00:24:08,500 --> 00:24:10,400
Dinah response to question
forcing happily.

467
00:24:10,400 --> 00:24:13,100
It hasn't been the case for us
yet.

468
00:24:14,000 --> 00:24:16,000
Also, yeah, I think is another
answer to question.

469
00:24:16,200 --> 00:24:19,200
Same, I don't run any Twitter
campaigns by imagine, it's a

470
00:24:19,208 --> 00:24:22,800
mess right now to not sure if
this would qualify as a brand

471
00:24:22,800 --> 00:24:26,400
safety concern necessarily but
as a general Twitter user, I've

472
00:24:26,400 --> 00:24:30,000
also seen some pretty terrible
and weird sketchy ads being

473
00:24:30,000 --> 00:24:32,700
served in the last two to three
months.

474
00:24:32,700 --> 00:24:36,000
Yeah, lots of sketchiness on
Twitter, Gil response to

475
00:24:36,000 --> 00:24:38,300
question forcing.
We've been very cautious with

476
00:24:38,300 --> 00:24:41,600
pmax lately and make sure to
prevent Google from

477
00:24:41,600 --> 00:24:45,600
auto-generating anything other
than that hasn't been a big

478
00:24:45,600 --> 00:24:47,300
deal.
So, for most of our clients

479
00:24:47,300 --> 00:24:51,700
setting campaigns up properly at
first will prevent a lot of

480
00:24:51,700 --> 00:24:56,400
myths, placement, Julia voice
response to question for saying

481
00:24:56,400 --> 00:24:58,100
Twitter.
Definitely thinking about

482
00:24:58,100 --> 00:25:01,400
trusted partners for display
versus gdn, even for smaller

483
00:25:01,400 --> 00:25:05,300
campaigns basically, how can we
build relationships rather than

484
00:25:05,300 --> 00:25:09,300
platform dependence and Lawrence
response to question for saying,

485
00:25:09,300 --> 00:25:11,100
P.
Max is the biggest one, a lot of

486
00:25:11,100 --> 00:25:14,900
Brands just cannot do it because
of the risk videos, placements,

487
00:25:14,900 --> 00:25:17,400
Etc.
And then yeah Ashton response to

488
00:25:17,400 --> 00:25:19,800
question for as well.
See, not really mentioned this

489
00:25:19,800 --> 00:25:23,300
in other answers, but most of my
clients, really only care that

490
00:25:23,300 --> 00:25:26,100
we are using the right messaging
or brand guidelines.

491
00:25:26,100 --> 00:25:30,300
I still care about where ADS
show, but we try to mitigate

492
00:25:30,300 --> 00:25:35,000
that on our end and it's never
been a roadblock for the client

493
00:25:35,300 --> 00:25:37,000
and then Kristen response to
question.

494
00:25:37,000 --> 00:25:39,900
Forcing, I can't say there are
any brand safety concerns which

495
00:25:39,900 --> 00:25:42,500
would cause me to completely
stop an initiative.

496
00:25:42,600 --> 00:25:47,300
I always find a way you go first
response to Enforce a no Twitter

497
00:25:47,300 --> 00:25:49,700
whatsoever.
Also, careful with P Max.

498
00:25:49,700 --> 00:25:54,700
And if doing it, making sure
campaign setup meticulously with

499
00:25:54,700 --> 00:25:57,800
great assets and then yeah,
Julie takes us on to question

500
00:25:57,800 --> 00:26:00,000
five saying, what is on your
brand?

501
00:26:00,000 --> 00:26:01,700
Safety?
Wish list for platforms?

502
00:26:02,000 --> 00:26:06,100
This can be a general wish or
specific to a platform.

503
00:26:06,800 --> 00:26:10,000
Dilg only responds saying
honestly just give me complete

504
00:26:10,000 --> 00:26:12,900
insight into where ADS have been
placed and I'll be good.

505
00:26:13,000 --> 00:26:15,900
They are very little granular
placements that I care about.

506
00:26:16,100 --> 00:26:19,300
Them being next to adult or
violent content, which are

507
00:26:19,300 --> 00:26:22,900
already banned by most
platforms, Diana response

508
00:26:22,900 --> 00:26:24,600
saying.
I would love more transparency

509
00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:29,100
and control over the places.
Our Brands could appear bars,

510
00:26:29,100 --> 00:26:32,000
respond saying not strictly from
an advertiser's perspective.

511
00:26:32,000 --> 00:26:34,900
By just wished platforms.
Took moderation and platform

512
00:26:34,900 --> 00:26:38,200
safety more.
Seriously, some of the stuff on

513
00:26:38,200 --> 00:26:41,200
there is not only unsafe for
advertisers, but should

514
00:26:41,200 --> 00:26:44,900
generally not be viewed by
anyone, especially not by

515
00:26:44,900 --> 00:26:47,800
children at, To respond saying
more control and data,

516
00:26:47,800 --> 00:26:51,600
transparency less data.
Leakage third-party sources can

517
00:26:51,600 --> 00:26:55,700
be a bun or a curse.
Depends how it influences and

518
00:26:55,700 --> 00:26:59,400
how much control it takes away
from you Dooley response to

519
00:26:59,400 --> 00:27:01,300
question.
Five saying categorical,

520
00:27:01,300 --> 00:27:05,000
exclusions that actually fully
work would be Fab transparency

521
00:27:05,000 --> 00:27:07,900
in where ADS show and the
ability to exclude things.

522
00:27:07,900 --> 00:27:11,500
I don't want better content,
moderation on social platforms

523
00:27:11,500 --> 00:27:15,900
or at least better tools to not
see vile things Julia.

524
00:27:16,100 --> 00:27:20,100
Because, yes, let me her not
just my audiences but content

525
00:27:20,100 --> 00:27:23,700
categories all the way Tim
Heller and response to question

526
00:27:23,700 --> 00:27:27,200
five saying, I think everyone
was pretty unanimous more

527
00:27:27,200 --> 00:27:30,300
transparency.
If my ad showed tell me where

528
00:27:31,100 --> 00:27:34,700
Google ads, imagine if an out of
home provider was like your

529
00:27:34,700 --> 00:27:37,900
Billboards served in near the
Midwest but we can't give you

530
00:27:37,900 --> 00:27:41,500
specifics consider driving
around till you find it.

531
00:27:41,600 --> 00:27:45,700
Imagine Gogol their responses
your billboard may or may not

532
00:27:45,700 --> 00:27:49,100
have Ben right above one of
those abandoned roadside strip

533
00:27:49,100 --> 00:27:51,300
clubs in Ohio.
Does it really matter?

534
00:27:51,300 --> 00:27:52,800
Wow.
Yeah, that's more like it

535
00:27:52,900 --> 00:27:54,000
Melissa goes.
Right?

536
00:27:54,000 --> 00:27:58,400
This matters in other channels,
why not search or social

537
00:27:58,500 --> 00:28:01,900
definitely a fair point.
Ashton clock response saying

538
00:28:01,900 --> 00:28:05,300
these are mostly for Google ads
and Microsoft advertising Bots.

539
00:28:05,300 --> 00:28:09,100
More visibility into placements,
especially for p Max and search

540
00:28:09,100 --> 00:28:11,200
Partners.
Being able to add campaign

541
00:28:11,200 --> 00:28:15,000
level, exclusions for p Max, and
not partnering with sketchy

542
00:28:15,000 --> 00:28:17,600
sites to You guys to we can
dream.

543
00:28:17,600 --> 00:28:21,000
LOL, Melissa goes this.
And when Diana goes, I would

544
00:28:21,000 --> 00:28:23,400
love more transparency and
control over the places are

545
00:28:23,400 --> 00:28:26,400
Brands could have pair, she
continues, more control and

546
00:28:26,400 --> 00:28:28,700
transparency.
We are happy to test new things

547
00:28:28,700 --> 00:28:33,100
but cannot just have ads showing
wherever need visibility and the

548
00:28:33,100 --> 00:28:37,500
ability to turn off aspects.
I don't that know we come to the

549
00:28:37,500 --> 00:28:41,600
end of the chat, we shall be
having the audio version of this

550
00:28:41,600 --> 00:28:44,500
chat on Thursday.
The 12th album, 12 p.m.

551
00:28:44,600 --> 00:28:47,400
EST on time. 5:00 p.m.
GMT.

552
00:28:47,400 --> 00:28:51,500
So pretty much the same time as
the Twitter chat today but on

553
00:28:51,500 --> 00:28:53,000
Thursday.
Yeah.

554
00:28:53,000 --> 00:28:55,500
I hope you took some great
takeaways from that.

555
00:28:55,500 --> 00:28:58,100
Are you wish list similar?
Are they any different extra

556
00:28:58,100 --> 00:29:00,400
wish list that you have, please
let us know?

557
00:29:00,400 --> 00:29:04,000
Just yeah, send your comments
and put the hashtag PPC chat

558
00:29:04,000 --> 00:29:07,600
with love to hear it.
So yeah, hope you found it

559
00:29:07,600 --> 00:29:09,600
useful.
And if you want to hear more

560
00:29:09,600 --> 00:29:12,800
about the topic have more to say
about the topic yourself, join

561
00:29:12,800 --> 00:29:15,900
us on Thursday for any feedback
about the podcast or maybe even

562
00:29:16,100 --> 00:29:18,900
Some corrections or anything
that has been shed.

563
00:29:19,000 --> 00:29:22,100
Please get in touch with me.
My DMs are open on, at the

564
00:29:22,100 --> 00:29:24,500
marketing, a new, or on
LinkedIn.

565
00:29:24,500 --> 00:29:27,400
Just find me on there, we've got
the PVC chat Roundup group.

566
00:29:27,500 --> 00:29:30,800
We'd love to have you.
There it also be great to all

567
00:29:30,800 --> 00:29:33,900
our long-standing and brand new
listeners to give the podcast a

568
00:29:33,900 --> 00:29:36,900
review, just to show that it's
growing.

569
00:29:36,900 --> 00:29:40,500
Just to show that it's worth
listening to and learning a lot

570
00:29:40,500 --> 00:29:43,600
about brand safety.
For example, just go to link

571
00:29:43,600 --> 00:29:47,500
tree.com /p p c--.
That underscore round up.

572
00:29:47,500 --> 00:29:53,600
So that's link2sd.
Re e.com, /pb, see chat

573
00:29:53,700 --> 00:29:56,400
underscore Roundup.
Also remember, we've got PPC

574
00:29:56,400 --> 00:29:59,900
live UK.
The next event of PVC live, UK

575
00:29:59,900 --> 00:30:01,600
happening on the 2nd of
February.

576
00:30:01,600 --> 00:30:05,900
We've got the likes of as Imam.
Ahmed, we've got Sophie Logan to

577
00:30:05,900 --> 00:30:10,300
top influences of PPC, as rated
by marketing, a clock, the

578
00:30:10,300 --> 00:30:13,500
amazing podcast and content
providers of amazing.

579
00:30:13,500 --> 00:30:17,700
Paid search news, as well as TM
Yoda's.

580
00:30:17,700 --> 00:30:21,400
So that's Google tag manager
Yoda Tiffany shares of absolute

581
00:30:21,500 --> 00:30:24,100
digital as well as Maddie
Crawford.

582
00:30:24,100 --> 00:30:25,900
Who's going to be talking about
ad copy.

583
00:30:25,900 --> 00:30:29,300
And yeah, she's amazing young
girl who just has been just, you

584
00:30:29,300 --> 00:30:33,100
know, running through the ranks
of paid search and also talking

585
00:30:33,100 --> 00:30:35,100
a different stages.
They've all spoken at Brighton

586
00:30:35,100 --> 00:30:38,300
sou before a couple of them have
spoken at hero conference.

587
00:30:38,300 --> 00:30:42,400
So these are some top quality,
very high knowledge people in

588
00:30:42,400 --> 00:30:45,700
paid search and people know how
to really attract a crowd.

589
00:30:45,700 --> 00:30:48,500
So 416 pounds, please.
Go to PC, live.

590
00:30:48,600 --> 00:30:51,900
UK it.com.
And please get your ticket

591
00:30:51,900 --> 00:30:53,900
there.
Finally remember for your

592
00:30:53,900 --> 00:30:55,800
campaigns and businesses to
Glide smoothly.

593
00:30:55,800 --> 00:30:57,300
There's a lot of hard work
needed.

594
00:30:57,300 --> 00:31:00,500
We need the surface, so keep
your storms kicking by and speak

595
00:31:00,500 --> 00:31:01,300
to you next week.