This week, Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research was the first analyst to downgrade Google because of the dustup.
It began last week when marketing giant Havas pulled all of its ads from Google’s YouTube UK site following a report from the Times of London that British government ads had been placed alongside videos from white supremacist David Duke and anti-Semitic pastor Steve Anderson.
Wieser told The Post on Wednesday that the impact will be felt by Google, which instead of discussing how to take away TV ad dollars in upcoming ad negotiations will now be mired in “brand safety issues.”
“The marginal increase [in ad dollars] is less likely to occur,” Wieser said.
He said the impact on Google was likely to be around 1 percent of its revenue base, or $1 billion.
“Google’s stated solution was late and woeful,” Wieser said. “Given numerous opportunities to nip it in the bud, they’ve seemingly made it worse.”
According to multiple sources including the London Times, the UK’s Solicitor General floated the possibility that Google executives may face criminal prosecution for revenue share agreements with terrorist supporters posting videos on YouTube that Google monetized with advertising. So not only would Google be in breach of its promises to advertisers, Google might also have breached the UK’s terror laws, money laundering statutes, or committed the usual list of lesser and included crimes.
Google could be prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation if it fails to remove illegal content from its YouTube video platform, ministers said yesterday.
Robert Buckland, QC, the solicitor general, said that the internet giant could be criminally liable if it was found to have “recklessly” disseminated videos posted by extreme groups such as National Action, a far-right group proscribed as a terrorist organisation in December.
Mr Buckland also revealed that the government was considering adopting a German law which would allow huge fines to be levied on social media companies that failed to crack down on hate speech and illegal content.
Before you either snicker or drool at the idea of Google executives being frog marched out of their palatial offices in handcuffs and leg irons, remember a few of the examples of corporate crooks and just how long it took to actually get them into the pokey. But also remember this–if you had told a room full of MBAs in 1985 that in a few years time Drexel Bernham Lambert would be bankrupt and Michael Milken would be in prison, you would have been laughed out of the room.
Alphabet Inc. GOOGL , the parent company of Google, received a downgrade today to “Hold” from “Buy” by Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser. The reason for the rating cut centered on the placement of YouTube’s ads. Some ad buyers had voiced that their ads appeared next to videos carrying homophobic or terroristic videos on YouTube.
This has become a large problem for Google in the UK, as many of the largest brands have suspended their advertising on YouTube. Agency holding company Havas HAVSF announced that it has suspended all advertising on YouTube and Google Display Network for its clients in the U.K. Havas’ clients includes the UK Government, L’Oreal LRLCY , McDonald’s MCD , and Sainsbury, JSAIY .
“We think that the problems which have come to light will have global repercussions as marketers potentially adapt their U.K. policies to other markets and as marketers around the world become more aware of the problem,” said Wieser in a report….
Alphabet closed the day with a decrease of $4.46 (0.51%) to $867.91 per share.
Remember how Facebook sells artist names as advertising keywords and how Google had to pay the Department of Justice a $500,000,000 forfeiture for promoting the sale of illegal drugs?
The plot sickens–now it turns out that reports say Snapchat’s ad sales team was trying to shakedown a little gun safety nonprofit by threatening to run National Rifle Association ads against their gun safety collateral.
Because that’s what Silicon Valley IPOs are all about, right? (“Snap jumps more than 40% in debut trade on Wall Street“).
Snapchat told a gun safety charity it might run NRA ads on the charity’s anti-gun violence awareness campaign — which would have featured videos starring families who lost their loved ones to firearms — if the charity didn’t pay Snapchat for advertising, emails provided to Mic by a source close to the exchange show.
Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit backed by Michael Bloomberg and devoted to curbing gun violence and decreasing fatalities from firearms, reached out to Snapchat in early 2016 about advertising on the messaging service’s massive platform for its #WearOrange event on National Gun Violence Awareness Day, a day of advocacy organized by the charity in conjunction with families who have lost loved ones to gun violence.
Rob Saliterman, Snapchat’s head of political sales, responded with an advertising quote of at least $150,000 to allow Snapchat users to participate in the event using custom filters and lenses.
Remember the ex-Googler Renata Hesse who managed to get both herself and the Department of Justice sued by SONA over Hesse’s grotesque mishandling of 100% licensing? Like a good little bureaucrat, she leaves the songwriters to clean up her mess while she skips out to the big money. Don’t let the revolving door hit you.
And good job avoiding a confirmation hearing…that won’t happen again.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is hiring Renata Hesse, formerly head of the antitrust division at the Justice Department, as the law firm prepares for a continued wave of complex, cross-border mergers and other deals.
Ms. Hesse, 52 years old, will join Sullivan & Cromwell as a partner in Washington, D.C., the firm plans to announce Monday. The move is noteworthy not just because of Ms. Hesse’s stature in legal circles, but also because it is rare for Sullivan & Cromwell and other elite law firms to bring in partners from the outside. Until January, Ms. Hesse was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the antitrust division at the Justice Department, a position she has held twice.
In honor of Fair Use Week, let’s begin by unmasking the false premise underlying much of the celebration of fair use — that is, that the basic objective of the copyright system is to achieve a balance between the “public interest” on the one hand, and the interest of private copyright owners on the other. In this formulation, the “public” interest is exclusively defined as the ability to get copyrighted materials as cheaply as possible, with free obviously being the best (since it is the cheapest) option.
Many of the organizations celebrating fair use would have you believe that copyright protection and the public interest are diametrically opposed. This is merely a rhetorical device, and is a complete fallacy. Groups like EFF, Public Knowledge and re:Create employ emotive rhetoric in an attempt to demonize copyright, and to suggest that “copyright” protection is somehow a “special interest.”
[More news from royalty deadbeat Facebook trying to mimic royalty deadbeat YouTube for the same old shite revenue share deal. Are we going to get the okie doke hillbilly deal yet again?]
The world’s largest social network has redoubled its efforts to reach a broad accord with the industry, according to interviews with negotiators at labels, music publishers and trade associations. A deal would govern user-generated videos that include songs and potentially pave the way for Facebook to obtain more professional videos from the labels themselves….
Facebook’s interest in music rights is inextricably linked to its growing interest in video. Having siphoned ads away from print, online companies have recently targeted TV, which attracts about $70 billion in advertising a year. While Facebook faces competition from Twitter Inc. and Snapchat Inc., its main rival is Google, and music is one of the most popular types of videos on Google’s YouTube service. Facebook declined to make an executive available for an interview.