When News Outlets Bid on Tragedy…
April 25th, 2007 by 
It is a common methodology for advertisers to utilize SEM to coincide with their natural search rankings. Running sponsored ads with promotions, sales, special dates, etc. can increase brand awareness and improve sponsored ad click-through-rates. Additionally, it is an easy way for advertisers to place higher on a page than competitors who appear only in the natural results.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise when news outlets bid on ‘hot terms’ in SEM to receive higher traffic volumes than sites solely producing organic results. However, when a media agency seemingly exploits a tragedy in the news by bidding on a related keyword, can it be harmful to the organization?
For instance, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and many other high profile media outlets bid on keywords relating to the recent Virginia Tech tragedy. These agencies targeted the many online users searching for any updates and available news. While any big event can trigger like behavior from media agencies and the practice is becoming commonplace, are ‘tragedy keywords’ crossing the line of tactfulness?
The full article broaching this subject can be found at: Media Mine Web Searches for Readers.
Points to Ponder:
• Is it in bad taste for companies to bid on certain words?
• Is there a threshold that advertisers should avoid?
• Does it come down to individual choices made by advertisers based on social paradigms?
Posted in Search Marketing News
It may be unethical or insensitive — but it isn’t really any different than the other ways media outlets go about attracting readers/viewers. Regardless of the subject matter, newspapers and networks never just sit back and hope readers/viewers come to them. They’re always aggressively promoting themselves as the ones with the exclusive story. PPC is just one more way of expanding their reaching, and is certainly no less ethical than their other, pre-existing methods.
I think that people naturally turn to the web and their favorite portals to read up on such events. Unfortunately, in these situations, I think it is in bad taste to promote a company or news source based upon the “most-up-to-date” information. I think that trusted news sources should be weary when placing bids during these specific types of incidents.
I think that it depends on the type of “tragedy word” we are talking about. If outlets are bidding on and/or releasing unethical or unsavory material then the practice is not acceptable in my opinion. However, making sure that comprehensive and ethical information is high on the list makes sense to me. In situations like this the web has been a key source of information and the press looked to social media like never before which I think is a larger issue.. Check out these articles:
Virginia Tech Shootings: Role of Social Media & Search in Journalism (and the Suckiness of Contextual Ads) - http://searchviews.com/archives/2007/04/virginia_tech_shootings.php
Virginia Tech and Social Media Some Questions for Newsrooms/ - http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/04/19/virginia-tech-and-social-media-some-questions-for-newsrooms/
I feel that when a tragedy occurs, such as the horrific Virginia Tech incident, it is a normal reaction for people to do online searches to keep informed as to what is transpiring. I also feel that people pretty much expect to see the ads that are being placed online by advertisers.
It is interesting to note these sites are very on top of the time sensitivity of this type of marketing.
These are todays ads on Google:
“Virginia Tech Shooting” - 2 ads
“Virginia Tech Tragedy” - 0 ads
“Virginia Tech Massacre” - 0 ads
I wont get into my personal views on the ethics and responsibilities of our press corps. Lets just say I am less than enthusiastic.