Walmart, Pepsi, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon, AT&T andFX. All of these brands have turned their collective backs onYouTube. The reason is they claim that Google (which owns YouTube)has not done enough to ensure that their pre-roll, ads and otherpaid media are not being protected enough from running in front ofor during “hate speech” or other extremist content that can befound on YouTube. So they have passed the buck to Google … whenthey should be looking at their own (and their media agencies')greed and laziness as the true culprit.

The core of the issue here is in programmatic buying. The easyexplanation here is that you are buying a set of impressions,views, clicks, etc. on what amounts to a computerized trading deskthat is then distributed out into a network. You can buy specificsites via this method as well.

What is happening is that brands are not controlling where theyare being seen … and their media agencies are not vetting wherethey run content. For example, in almost all cases, it is a goodstandard practice to have an actual human being look at thewebsites and YouTube channels that you are going to run on. This isa practice that credit unions should be using. While manyprogramatic platforms (Google's self-service is technicallyprogramatic) do offer ways to limit where your content and ads willpop up, the algorithm is not perfect.

Google has attempted to remedy this situation by rolling out astandard of 10,000 views for a channel before the channel ownerwill be allowed to monetize it. This is an empty gesture as myseven-year-old can get 10,000 views unboxing new toys, so beassured that the digital experts at ISIS (and they are experts) caneasily meet that mark.

You might ask yourself where this all came from. A gentlemannamed Eric Feinberg has essentially been making brands aware ofthis content mismatch so that he can sell brands the solution.Eric's system allows for websites and video to be analyzed forkeywords. So by alerting the brands to the “disease” … he is ableto sell the cure.

What is most interesting is that generally (we can't take intoaccount suggested content that misses the mark), when your targeteduser sees your ad in tandem with a piece of objectionable content,they are still seeking out that content, and there has not been astudy that shows a negative correlation between the user making anactive choice to view the content and feeling negative toward anadvertiser.

The argument can certainly be made that having your credit unionbrand show up next to a story about a local double murder is notideal, but the question you have to ask is, what are you payingfor? Is the goal to obtain attention in the most efficient manner?If so, what are you willing to accept to bring the cost down interms of dollars invested? My opinion is that there are plenty ofother areas to showcase your brand on the web … so hand selectionis important. However, each brand must decide for itself what is inits best interest.

In the case of the ones that have pulled from YouTube, theapparent time investment to vet where they run their advertising isnot worth it. This is a stance that I do not understand or agreewith, but they are making a decision on what to do about this issueso as not to have an embarrassing situation come to a head.

So how can credit union brands address the issue of hostilecontent running with their ads and ultimately benefit from it? Hereare a few steps that can be implemented with relative ease and sometime.

1. Hand-select the sites and channels you are runningon. Not only will you save your brand from connecting withquestionable content, but the sites you omit are likely home to“bot traffic” (clicks and visits to your site that are not human).Some estimates put up to 50% of all clicks in the bot category. Bylimiting exposure, you are going to get improved traffic in theform of more time on the site, lower bounce rates and increasedpage views.

2.Spend time adjusting your bidding for websites andchannels. Finding the cost floor and not allowing forautomatic content bidding is going to help you to reduce costs.Also, if we start to see more brands pull from YouTube, there maybe cost reductions as competition for inventory slows down.

3. Dig into content that is more niche and relevant toyour specific audience. The inverse of #2 may also happen,as when brands start to be more selective the premium content willbecome more costly. Combating this means targeting your specificaudience. Maybe that's a local mom who has 15,000 subscribers.

4. Have a conversation with the credit union's leadersto better understand the stance of the credit union regardingcontent. Is it only extremist and sexualized content thatshould be avoided or is steering clear of negative local news andpolitical content also important?

In the 1950s, brands were wary of having their ads play afterstories about communism. This is no different – it is the sameissue repackaged. Ultimately, it is all about spending time tolearn about where your ads are playing.

Jim Pond is a Partner at James andMatthew. He can be reached at 978-424-4500or [email protected].