When the coronavirus crisis erupted nearly a year ago, advertisers quickly made decisions about their advertising budgets and advertising actions. Some suspended the announcements entirely, in a kind of waiting time to see what the next weeks would bring. Others, although they kept Nepal Mobile Database the hype, made decisions about what to launch, where and when. Pandemic ads appeared, certain types of messages were paused, and new parameters were added to programmatic advertising. In this last area, the advertisers – hoping to recover in health – blocked all those keywords that linked to the disease and that were negative. Fearing brand safety and seeking to shield it as much as possible, marketers tried to prevent their ads from appearing in all the news items that touched on the virus. It was a way of not appearing on dubious sites that were taking advantage of the issue, but also a way to prevent their positive and bright ads from accompanying especially dramatic and tragic news. 
And this was a very big problem for the media and for advertisers: for the former, all the news ended up being about the coronavirus and, for the latter, this meant that they were left out of content with a large audience and reference media. A June study found that 43% of the media recognized that keyword blocking had clearly become a problem . 23% even pointed to it as something “strongly” problematic. With the blockade, revenues were falling and the content that readers wanted the most at the time they were looking for it more and more was not being monetized. Estimates indicated that most online media had lost their programmatic advertising revenue.
Possibly, moreover, the advertisers had been overly cautious. Studies at the time noted, in general, that consumers did not reject advertising during those especially dramatic months of the pandemic. They understood that Brother Cell Phone List he had to go on because the world went on too. But, in addition, in general, marketers are mistrustful when it comes to media and programmatic advertising. That is, brand safety is a problem and an important one, but they are making the media pay for debts that do not belong to them. Internet users do not see the content served by social networks the same as those served by the media and what in one case is a complicated and toxic keyword is not in the other. That is what can be concluded from a recent British study .
The study was carried out by Reach, who studied how ads are perceived and what consumers believe. In general, Internet users trust the media more than they do other online channels. Thus, 73% acknowledge that they expect to see unreliable content on social networks, 43% on sites with user-generated content and 19% – much less – on news sites. The same happens with violent content and those that generate shock. 52% expect violent content on social networks and 44% on user-generated content sites, compared to 9% in the news media, and 59% do so with content that impacts on social networks and 47% in the generated by users, compared to 14% in news sites. In other words, the contents that weigh down the image of the brand and that become toxic do not usually appear in the media.
