Hey everyone, Craig Pajek
Hope you’re all doing good
According to a recent investigation by “The Times in London”, marketing campaigns by large corporate entities are appearing alongside “Repugnant” and “despicable” videos on YouTube.
This claim has subsequently been followed by Walmart, Pepsi, Starbucks, and several other companies freezing their ad spending on YouTube, and additionally threatening that they will stop buying ads that Google places on more than two million other third-party websites.
Is it just me, or are these companies just acting like a bunch of big crybabies? Isn’t this the same Starbucks who previously attacked Donald trump and then spitefully suggested that they would hire 10,000 refugees to work in their chain of stores, only to later suffer a public backlash?
It seems we’re at the point where we need to start lumping certain corporations in with the lunatic left of celebrities who are constantly virtue signaling and spouting ideological nonsense.
My immediate concern upon reading of this situation was, whose definition of repugnant and despicable are we using? Past experience tells me “repugnant and despicable” likely means any right leaning opinion or commentary …and acceptable would be any view supported by the left.
In my opinion it should be individual viewers who decide the value of all content. If a creator is able to build a large base of subscribers and generate massive views …Clearly those ideas resonate, and there is value in what they are doing. Any advertiser should feel privileged to piggy back off of that success, and to generate profit for their shareholders through access to that creator’s audience.
The whole point of advertising is to get your product or service in front of potential buyers. Not to pass judgement on the opinions or political beliefs of those buyers. If a video gets 10 million views, that’s 10 million potential customers. The arrogance of these corporations is stunning.
As a corporation paying for product placement and visibility in the market, why would you care about the content or opinion expressed in the video? You are not endorsing the content of the video any more than the content creator is endorsing your product. It’s a symbiotic relationship where you both benefit, but there is no illusion on the part of viewers that either party endorses the other, or that they are further associated in any way.
If corporations are really that concerned about it, simply put a small disclaimer on the bottom of the ad stating that your company does not endorse opinions expressed on YouTube. Problem solved.
I fear there is a far more sinister and partisan reason behind this. It seems to be more a case of companies trying to throw their weight around, to shut down ideas and dialogue that individual CEO’s personally disagree with. This is obviously highly inappropriate on many levels.
It seems like significant overreach to be judging the moral compass or political views of potential customers. To put it bluntly, the content people choose to view is none of these CEO’s damn business.
Are people who hold view’s considered politically incorrect not allowed to drink Pepsi or shop at Walmart? My recommendation is that we should boycott these companies altogether. Pepsi, for example, who earns millions of dollars by marketing products that can lead to tooth decay, diabetes, obesity and heart disease, are in no position to be a moral authority for anyone.
“Most analysts doubt the ad boycott will seriously hurt YouTube and Google’s corporate parent, Alphabet Inc.” …so this begs the question …then why is google siding with these corporations and now cracking down on their own content creators?
Blocking and removing content that is clearly resonating with viewers and generating views, is not “cleaning things up” …it’s censoring and shutting down ideas and dialogue. By limiting a diversity of ideas and opinions on their site, they also limit the diversity of their own viewership. By blocking certain videos from ever being posted, YouTube will be essentially shooting themselves in the foot and will become less relevant.
They either create a nightmare scenario of matching each advertiser with specific agreed upon “acceptable narratives” in content, or they create a precedent, where they must label certain content creators and their respective audiences as being more repugnant than other. This serves the best interest of no one.
None of this is necessary. There’s actually another very simple solution.
It’s called “the free market”. Stop allowing socialist ideas about control and censorship to creep into everything.
Socialism has been shown over and over again to be a failure in absolutely every area where it’s ever been applied. Stick to “capitalist free market basics” and there literally is no problem.
“A free market of ideas, a free market of creators, and a free market of advertisers”. No self-righteous “do-gooder” meddling required. What we have now is “the tail wagging the dog”, where big business is attempting to enforce the agenda and narrative favored by its predominately “leftist” CEO’s
This all reeks of collusion. These corporations are providing a convenient excuse, to justify a desire YouTube has already shown, for increased censoring of all viewpoints that do not support their own leftist opinions.
We live in an age where free speech is constantly under attack on numerous fronts, and it’s time to push back hard before our rights are completely eroded.
CEO’s need to mind their own damn business by focusing on profits and shareholders, and YouTube should stay the hell out of the censorship business, and allow viewers to make their own decision as to what content is acceptable, popular, or relevant.
Share this on your social media, leave a like or a comment below, and don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already
I’m Craig Pajek,
Thanks for reading, and I’ll see u next time!