Dead. Shooting. Rape. Trump. Explosion.

These are just some of the words online advertisers have been adding to their lists of taboo terms. The result has been to discourage organisations from covering “hard” news and limit publishers’ revenues; according to some estimates, news sites only receive 5% of the online ad spend.

While black-listing specific terms started as a way to maintain brand safety in the free-for-all that is the online ad ecosystem, some think it’s gone too far. Now, publishers and agencies have begun to fight back, with studies and data showing ads placed on quality news pages get more attention and valuable audiences.

The beginning of black-listing

Brands have been using black-listed keywords to avoid controversial or sometimes just plain awkward placements for years. No airline wants to advertise its latest sale on fares next to a story about airline crashes.

The stakes were raised as sites like YouTube and Facebook, which rely on user-generated content, became significant parts of online marketing strategies. After some brands found themselves placed alongside racist, violent, or otherwise objectionable content and saw the subsequent backlash, black-listing keywords became an increasingly important way to control the content their ads appeared alongside.

In 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that investment company Fidelity had a list of more than 400 words it deemed unaligned with its brand. Additionally, “During the second quarter of (2019), 177 advertisers working with ad measurement firm DoubleVerify Inc. blocked their ads from appearing on news or political content online, up 33% from the year-earlier period and more than double the 2017 total ...” Integral Ad Science Inc. noted in the WSJ article that, in the first quarter, the average number of keywords its clients blacklisted was 261, though one blocked a whopping 1,553 words.

The de facto result of the collective decision of these brands is to force publishers to spend more time and resources producing “lifestyle” content, and less time reporting real news.

Still, even the puff pieces are not safe anymore. As MSN.com reported, “The Washington Post’s crossword puzzle was recently deemed too offensive for advertisers. So was an article about thunderstorms. And a ranking of boxed brownie mixes.”

Clearly, something has gone awry.

High-quality news is brand-safe

Publishers hope advertisers will take a more nuanced view of what’s “safe” and are taking steps to prove news blocking is terrible for everyone’s business. Research from Stagwell suggests ads alongside stories about news topics (i.e., politics, inflation, and crime) are just as effective as ads on business, entertainment, and sports stories. In some cases, harder news stories are outperforming softer counterparts.

According to Stagwell, “Among Gen Z, a key demographic group for advertisers, the average purchase intent for brands whose ads were placed next to high-quality news articles on the Middle East conflict was 61%, compared to 58% for inflation and 57% for crime — differences that are statistically insignificant. To compare, purchase intent was 59% for entertainment (widely considered a ‘safe’ news topic).”

Increasingly, research reveals that focusing solely on keywords and not on quality may be a short-sighted strategy that disadvantages brands. For instance the recent Teads study, “The Power of Traditional News: Enhancing Ad Effectiveness Through Quality Journalism” found traditional news drove 18% higher reader interest versus lifestyle and culture-driven headlines.

It also boosted article engagement by 35% and increased ad attention by 20%. Another academic study found “the type of news content (‘hard’ versus ‘soft’ news) does not detectably impact ad effectiveness — evidence against the practice of ‘block lists’ of sensitive news topics by advertisers.”

High-quality news has high-quality readers

The most critical point, in terms of convincing advertisers where their money will be best spent, may be that high-quality news has high-quality readers. A report found the audience for high-quality news has more money, is more health-conscious and educated, and is more likely to describe themselves as happy.

Still, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. And it may take time for phobic advertisers to wade back into the news waters as the political situation grows more volatile and polarized in the United States and beyond.

Savvy brands looking to get in front of high-value consumers abandoned by more timid advertisers may see an opportunity in advertising with top news publishers.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .