One of the big problems with programmatic advertising is where the ads appear and how you control who receives that advertising investment. Since everything is in the hands of the algorithms and that they care about reaching the appropriate targets above anything else, advertising is served interchangeably in one medium or another. What matters is not the support, but who will see that ad. It makes a lot of logic, yes, but it has already put different players in the sector in a lot of trouble. A few years ago, YouTube was in a scandal when it was discovered Macedonia Mobile Database that ads from different brands were appearing alongside extremist content. It has not been the only scandal of these characteristics and, from time to time, programmatic must face this type of situation. For brands, this data reinforces the idea that programmatic advertising can pose a risk to their brand image. Appearing on undesirable sites not only leads to paying for advertising impressions to whom you would rather not, but also for consumers to associate your brand with those spaces. 
One of the last workhorses has been in disinformation and fake news. Advertisers don’t want their ads to appear on such sites, for clear reasons. Consumers do not want their advertisements to support the headlines that publish this type of information, but also those responsible for brands do not want it to affect their brand image and reputation. Appearing in fake news spaces can damage your credibility. The coronavirus crisis has led to the emergence of new threats in this area, as a lot of misinformation and fake news related to the disease have been generated. One of the areas in which this has occurred is in vaccines and, as a study has just shown, brands are economically fueling those spaces with their advertisements.
A NewsGuard study has just shown that between February last year and this year, more than 4,315 brands saw just over 42,000 of their ads appear on sites that publish conspiracy theories and lies about the coronavirus. His estimates indicate that these ads will have generated millions of impressions and, with them, a revenue stream for those media. The impression Brother Cell Phone List data served on disinformation sites is always worrying for brands, but, as recalled in Business Insider , now it is a little more so because of how the market has changed during the year of the covid. Advertisers have taken refuge more than ever in internet advertisements and with this they have achieved that the part that digital advertising takes from their advertising budgets is greater. The problem now is how much of that investment goes to these types of sites.
The problem of misinformation about the coronavirus
The brands affected are many and of all kinds. There are giants of all conditions, but also public organizations and medical companies with campaigns linked to vaccination or prevention of the disease. Thus, the NewsGuard data lists Pepsi, Verizon, Marriott, Walmart, Pfizer or the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) among the brands that have been affected. One of the examples is the CDC campaigns, which the study located, for putting a sample, on an anti-mask site and which defends that taking zinc cures the disease. The study shows that, despite the fact that companies are increasingly active when it comes to controlling in which media their ads appear, with this they do not achieve absolute control and do not avoid the risks of programmatic. Undesirable media for their brands continues to creep in, in part because they continue to use the same advertising tools that legitimate media use. 67% of the ads located on disinformation sites about the coronavirus had been served by Google.