Hasta La Creative!

True story. Years ago there was a strip joint named the Diamond Club in the village abutting my suburban Westchester town. An unwelcome presence, public pressure eventually brought it down. One day, a high-profile member of our community led a protest outside the club. Let’s call her Mrs. Cleaver. Unbeknownst to her, Mr. Cleaver happened to be inside the club at the time. As he was about to exit, he saw the commotion, the picket signs — and his wife — outside. Ingeniously, Mr. Cleaver managed to quickly pay his way out the back door, circle around the property, grab a sign and discretely join the protest. That was some sweet footwork right there. Mr. Cleaver quickly turned vice into virtue, and rejoined the ranks of the righteous.

Which brings me to the digital ad placement flare-up, and the manner in which leading agency voices have begun to deftly reframe the resulting narrative on terms more favorable to their interests. If there were an award for this kind of thing, it should be called a Cleaver.

Let’s review. Last month, The Times of London published the results of an investigation that basically confirmed that cat food ads can occasionally appear next to ISIS videos. The findings were alarming, and the thrust of the article was clear: since those who post nasty content may be eligible to receive a share of the revenue generated by ads appearing in, near, or before the crap they have published — unwitting advertisers are inadvertently underwriting, enabling and incenting bad actors to further promulgate their nonsense. Not cool.

Continue reading at AdAge.com