I read the book, I know it's a satire, but the placement is just off.
New York Times, Tacky Ad Placement
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Unintended Consequences
Is it just me, or is it extremely awkward that right next to an article reporting Dana Reeve's tragic passing, from lung cancer, the New York Times has an ad for the movie "Thank You for Smoking?" It's tasteless.
I read the book, I know it's a satire, but the placement is just off.
New York Times, Tacky Ad Placement
I read the book, I know it's a satire, but the placement is just off.
New York Times, Tacky Ad Placement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This makes me so angry! Dana Reeves was an amazing, strong woman and you know what!?
SHE NEVER SMOKED!!!! Lung cancer is effecting more and more young women that have never smoked. This is so tragic and irresponsible of the media.
It was probably an honest mistake. A lot of online advertising is now set up to display based on key words, and I'm sure "lung cancer" triggered an ad that matched with "smoking".
Unfortunately, I think Jeremy is right - it is a miscalculation on the part of the search engine that is generating those ads.
Lauren you are right. Dana Reeves was an incredible woman.
Speaking of celebrity passings, I'm about to lose it over Kirby Puckett - must blog about that soon.
Sorry about that last post, the address I linked to didn't work, let me try again:
Check out this article that talks about a similar snafu that Wal*Mart had with their movie recommendation engine.
Sure, I recall reading about the W-M problem. I would guess that the ads are served randomly, which makes me question their worth to the advertisers. I mean, if this is your movie, is this article where you want your ad served? I just think that in this instance the result of randomness is pretty unfortunate.
Post a Comment