Walmart, Pepsi, GM, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon, AT&T and FX. All of these brands have turned their collective backs on YouTube. The reason is they claim that Google (which owns YouTube) has not done enough to ensure that their pre-roll, ads and other paid media are not being protected enough from running in front of or during “hate speech” or other extremist content that can be found on YouTube. So they have passed the buck to Google … when they 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 easy explanation here is that you are buying a set of impressions, views, clicks, etc. on what amounts to a computerized trading desk that is then distributed out into a network. You can buy specific sites via this method as well.

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

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

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

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

The argument can certainly be made that having your credit union brand show up next to a story about a local double murder is not ideal, but the question you have to ask is, what are you paying for? Is the goal to obtain attention in the most efficient manner? If so, what are you willing to accept to bring the cost down in terms of dollars invested? My opinion is that there are plenty of other areas to showcase your brand on the web … so hand selection is important. However, each brand must decide for itself what is in its best interest.

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

So how can credit union brands address the issue of hostile content running with their ads and ultimately benefit from it? Here are a few steps that can be implemented with relative ease and some time.

1. Hand-select the sites and channels you are running on. Not only will you save your brand from connecting with questionable 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. By limiting exposure, you are going to get improved traffic in the form of more time on the site, lower bounce rates and increased page views.

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

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

4. Have a conversation with the credit union's leaders to better understand the stance of the credit union regarding content. Is it only extremist and sexualized content that should be avoided or is steering clear of negative local news and political content also important?

In the 1950s, brands were wary of having their ads play after stories about communism. This is no different – it is the same issue repackaged. Ultimately, it is all about spending time to learn about where your ads are playing.

Jim Pond is a Partner at James and Matthew. He can be reached at 978-424-4500 or j@jamesandmatthew.com.

Instant Insights /

Is YouTube Too Dangerous for Credit Union Brands?

Related Stories

Recommended For You