Here’s today’s AdExchanger.com news round-up… Want it by email? Sign up here.
The Plus Surplus
The rise of subscription and membership-based app businesses has opened the door to a new type of partnership.
Disney and Uber, for instance, are natural partners. Starting a 30-minute ride? “Here’s an episode.” Facing a long commute? “Try this movie.”
But with subscription-based partnerships, these companies can forge unions that save customers money without painfully reducing their own revenue. Uber One, the Uber membership program, has a new promo in the UK that grants a year of free Disney+, saving people about 100 bucks on the subscription (but in pounds). The offer is for Disney+ with ads, of course; that’s how revenue is recouped.
Walmart+, its version of Amazon Prime, offers free access to Paramount+ with ads. And DoorDash, not to be left in the cold, just signed a deal with Max that includes its ad-supported tier for free with a subscription to its program, DashPass. (At least it’s not a plus.)
For those keeping track, Instacart+ subscribers have access to Peacock with ads, and the delivery service also recently signed a partnership to include cooking content from The New York Times in the Instacart app.
Billionaire-ing Of Grievances
What are the chances that Google and Meta actually crack down on bad practices when those practices are good for the bottom line?
Slim.
Except, that is, when the platforms piss off billionaires.
Late last year, Mark Cuban reached out to Check My Ads, an advertising watchdog and advocacy group, to help stop blatant fraud on Google Search, as bad actors suckered customers by pretending to offer official “Shark Tank” products.
Google brushed the problem off for years, Cuban said, and he was fed up enough that he enlisted Check My Ads to follow through.
Now Polish billionaire Rafal Brzoska is pushing for legal action in Europe because ads with his likeness are being used to endorse cryptocurrencies and other crap.
Google and Meta may regret not taking action sooner on these blatantly fake images. It just takes one motivated billionaire and you’ve suddenly got a legal fight on your hands.
“It will be the long battle,” Brzoska tells Bloomberg, “and I want to find out how big are revenues from ads that use deepfakes for fraudulent purposes.”
Safety Squeeze
Speaking of billionaires throwing their weight around … In the wake of X’s antitrust lawsuit that prompted marketer trade body WFA to shut down GARM, brand safety has officially become politicized.
Now, the ad industry is bracing for further politicization of efforts to demonetize misinformation and hate speech, Digiday reports.
According to X’s suit, GARM led a boycott of the platform to silence speech the group’s leadership disagrees with. But advertisers claim they left X because it cut its content moderation team and reinstated accounts previously banned for hate speech.
X bases its argument on a report released by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, which charged GARM with promoting a conspiracy to defund conservative media. Now other conservative media companies are following that playbook.
News Corp CEO Robert Thomson told investors last week that the company is “considering our legal options in confronting the blatant political bias of advertising industry bodies.” Conservative video-sharing platform Rumble also sued GARM.
All of this drama begs the question: Does the ad industry have the spine to stand up for brand safety?
“You’ve got Republicans that own 50% of the country saying it’s collusion,” an anonymous industry exec tells Digiday. “Nobody wants to piss off 50% of the country.”
But Wait, There’s More!
X CEO Linda Yaccarino defends the company’s antitrust lawsuit that ended GARM. [Axios]
The ad industry grapples with the brand safety void left by GARM’s closure. [Adweek]
The IAB Diligence Platform for compliance with US state privacy laws is now available. [IAB]
Patreon: Adding Apple’s 30% tax is the price of staying in the App Store. [The Verge]
You’re Hired!
Chris Polishuk joins Amperity as CRO. [release]
