In what could only be described as a Hail Mary pass, Google has agreed to cough up $250 million over five years to fund journalism and AI research in California. This deal was announced with much fanfare, and some might say a dash of self-congratulation. But before we start throwing confetti, let’s take a closer look at what’s really going on here.

The Big (and Not So Big) Picture

On the surface, this deal looks like a lifeline for local journalism. California’s newsrooms have been on life support for years, hemorrhaging jobs and revenue as the digital era reshaped the media landscape. The fund, administered by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, promises to inject much-needed cash into these struggling institutions. 

It helps Google paint itself as the savior of the free press while avoiding a dreaded “link tax” that could have forced the tech giant to pay publishers for linking to their content. This brings to mind California’s Journalism Preservation Act, which proposed to make Big Tech pay for news.

But here’s the kicker: $250 million over five years sounds like a lot until you consider that Google’s ad empire rakes in over $200 billion annually. To put it bluntly, this deal is a drop in the ocean for Google — a PR move dressed up as corporate responsibility.

Why It Matters: The Real Cost of Free News

For years, publishers have watched in horror as their ad revenues dried up while Google and Meta (Facebook’s parent company) turned into digital juggernauts. The relationship between tech platforms and news publishers has always been lopsided. Publishers create the content that drives traffic, but the platforms get the lion’s share of the ad dollars. This new deal doesn’t change that dynamic; it merely delays the inevitable. 

The idea of a “link tax” has been gaining traction globally, with Australia and Canada leading the charge. In those countries, Google and Meta were initially resistant, but eventually, they caved — well, sort of. In Australia, Google opted to pay selected publishers, while Meta briefly blocked news altogether before returning to the table. In Canada, Google agreed to pay $74 million annually to keep news content in its search results, while Meta decided to go the nuclear route and block news links entirely. The global push for Big Tech to pay for news mirrors what’s happening in California.

Google’s deal with the state allows the tech behemoth to avoid the more stringent regulations that would have come with the now-shelved CJPA. The CJPA would have forced Google and other tech giants to hand percentages of their ad revenue over to news publishers. Instead, we get a voluntary fund that’s easier for Google to swallow and far less beneficial for the publishers who need it most. The CJPA could have significantly shifted the balance of power, much like similar legislation in other regions.

The AI Angle: A Trojan Horse?

Then there’s the $62.5 million earmarked for AI research. Let’s not kid ourselves — this deal might seem like a bonus, but it’s worth asking whether it is really about saving journalism. Could it be more about Google bolstering its AI capabilities under the guise of public good?  While the idea of using AI to solve “real world problems” sounds noble, including AI funding in this deal is more about securing Google’s future dominance than helping the news industry.

As Google continues refining its AI-driven search features — like its Search Generative Experience — publishers are experiencing a decrease in traffic from organic search results, directly impacting their revenue. The rise of AI in search is reshaping the landscape, with AI-powered engines like Perplexity.ai offering revenue-sharing models that starkly contrast Google’s approach. 

Google’s move to include AI in this deal is less about journalism and more about maintaining its dominance in the search market. As Scott Messer recently pointed out in his analysis of Google’s latest SEO shake-ups, Google is playing a different game altogether. The company is not optimizing for sending traffic to publishers; instead, it’s focusing on maximizing its ad revenues, often at the expense of the very content creators it claims to support.

Critics, including journalists and labor unions, have called out the deal for what it really is: a backroom agreement that benefits Google far more than it does the struggling newsrooms of California. The Media Guild of the West, representing journalists in Southern California, Arizona, and Texas, was notably excluded from the negotiations, leading them to denounce the agreement as a “shakedown.” This isn’t the first time Google has been suspected of using its financial might to navigate legislative pressures.

Connecting the Dots: What Publishers Need to Know

For publishers, this deal is a double-edged sword. On one hand, any funding is better than none, especially in an industry that’s been in a death spiral for years. On the other hand, this deal sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing Google to dictate the terms of its support for journalism, California has effectively ceded control to a tech giant with little incentive to change the status quo.

Publishers should be wary of becoming too dependent on these kinds of deals. The digital landscape is shifting rapidly, and while Google’s money might keep some newsrooms afloat for now, it won’t fix the underlying issues that have led to the decline of local journalism. With AI companies like Perplexity.ai and OpenAI entering the scene with revenue-sharing models, publishers might need to start exploring these alternative sources of revenue to stay afloat — or, maybe not. The real solutions could lean more towards finding sustainable business models that don’t rely on the whims of Silicon Valley.

The Bottom Line: Google Wins Again

So, what’s the takeaway? Google has once again managed to sidestep regulation while presenting itself as a benefactor of the public good. The $250 million might help some newsrooms in the short term, but it does little to address long-term challenges. This deal is more of a Band-Aid than a cure.

As the dust settles, it’s clear that Google got the better end of this bargain. By agreeing to a voluntary fund, the tech giant has avoided the much larger financial obligations that would have come with the CJPA. Meanwhile, California’s newsrooms are left to grapple with an uncertain future, their fate still largely in the hands of the very platforms profiting from their decline. 

In the end, this deal is a stark reminder of the power imbalance between tech platforms and the news industry. Until that changes, we’re likely to see more deals like this — ones that look good on paper but ultimately fail to address the real issues at play.

The post Google’s $250 Million ‘Gift’ to California News – Is It Really a Gift or Just a Clever Tax Dodge? appeared first on AdMonsters.

It’s hard to ignore how pervasive misinformation and propaganda are online today. Public trust in authentic journalism deteriorates when inundated with false narratives, affecting advertisers who want to place ads on these publishers’ sites. LaCroix, notes that the oversaturation of disinformation fosters skepticism, leading audiences to disengage from credible news outlets. 

Furthermore, advertisers, wary of brand safety, withdraw their support from news platforms, triggering a vicious cycle where decreased revenue undermines journalistic quality. It’s already hard enough for publishers to monetize their sites without the struggle for misinformation and brand safety concerns. 

According to LaCroix, the rise of artificial intelligence presents a potential solution to the spread of misinformation. Through natural language processing and machine learning, AI tech offers promising solutions for detecting and mitigating false content. 

We spoke with LaCroix about the limitations of these technologies, particularly their struggles with context and volume and the necessity of a human being to ensure accuracy and reliability. Initiatives like Seekr Align aim to restore advertisers’ confidence by providing transparent and trustworthy evaluations of news content to foster a safer brand environment and support the resurgence of quality journalism.

Andrew Byrd: How does online disinformation and propaganda impact legitimate news sources?

Pat LaCroix: US audiences already believe that a lot of online content is dangerous or inappropriate. When you combine that belief with disinformation and propaganda, legitimate and authentic news sources suffer the most significant impact.

Public trust begins to erode, skepticism increases, and engagement with credible news outlets wanes. Advertisers concerned with brand safety want to avoid getting caught in the crosshairs, so they stop spending on news. Newsrooms are then forced to decrease investment in quality journalism, which impacts people’s ability to be informed, further decreasing overall trust in media. It’s a dangerous cycle.

AB: How can AI contribute to combating misinformation, and what limitations do current AI solutions face?

PL: Without transparency, there’s no trust. Misinformation and inappropriate content can quickly erode brand trust. AI can help mitigate this by automating the detection and flagging of false information through NLP and machine learning. Using AI-based large language models to help score and rate the viability of the massive content created is an enormous advantage when combating misinformation. 

However, a handful of limitations — like context and quantity — curb AI’s ability to solve this issue. That’s why applying principles and standards to LLMs with humans involved in the process is so critical.  When companies forge ahead without a human-in-the-loop approach, they often do so by sacrificing the checks and balances needed to understand the context and subtleties of naturally occurring human language – making it harder to distinguish right from wrong.

With the proliferation of generative AI content generation, a massive amount of content is created daily. Without suitable systems, separating fact from fiction becomes even more challenging.

AB: What are the roles of exclusion and block lists in the advertising industry? What are their effects on newsrooms?

Exclusion and block lists leverage an exhaustive list of keywords to prevent ads from appearing alongside inappropriate or undesirable content. If these lists include a word or phrase that doesn’t align with your brand ethos, an ad won’t appear, leading to unintended consequences. This process is often black and white and lacks crucial context, inadvertently leading to false positives and negatives and the demonetization of ad spending across potentially, and often, legitimate news sources.

AB: How does Seekr aim to reduce barriers for media buyers and brands in reaching valuable news audiences, especially in light of recent research showing a significant decline in advertising within news environments?

PL: Tools such as Seekr Align aim to reduce barriers for media buyers and brands in reaching valuable audiences for legitimate news sources. With Seekr Align, we can take a more nuanced and specific approach to content assessments, allowing for more informed decisions to avoid reliance on exclusionary and block lists. 

For example, Seekr’s patented Civility Score tracks personal attacks and measures severity within the context of spoken intent in a way that other keyword-based systems can’t, giving you insight into the real quality of the conversation.

We can evaluate podcasts and news articles at the URL level, scoring the content for credibility and reliability. The fact is that the majority of news content we rate receives high scores, meaning advertisers should invest more in the news. Our solutions help further our mission to support quality journalism.

AB: Could you explain how Seekr’s AI technology, particularly its use of LLMs, helps advertisers navigate the complexities of the information ecosystem and ensures brand safety within news environments?

PL: In April 2024, we announced a partnership with Intel, where we would leverage the Intel® Developer Cloud to build, train, and deploy advanced LLMs on cost-effective clusters. Within that announcement, we also launched SeekrFlow, an end-to-end LLM development toolset that allows developers to train and build LLMs using scalable and composable workflows.

This helps developers customize and scale a complex information ecosystem. Once optimized, these custom LLMs are piped into the user-friendly Seekr Align platform, which provides fast and accurate evaluations of digital content.  

When leveraged together, Seekr’s AI technology enables advertisers to find safe, suitable environments for their brands and better align with values to avoid risk association and harmful content.

AB: Given the challenges highlighted in the research regarding the decline in ad spend within the news category, how does Seekr envision its solutions revitalizing advertisers’ confidence in investing in news environments?

Trust is what holds us together. Not to be hyperbolic, but without trust, the economy and society fall apart. More trust and transparency are needed for these solutions to help revitalize waning confidence in credible news environments.

Trust is what holds us together. Not to be hyperbolic, but without trust, the economy and society fall apart. More trust and transparency are needed for these solutions to help revitalize waning confidence in credible news environments.

Our scoring systems and suitability assessments help advertisers see the work. As a result of this transparency, we’ve seen them become more secure in their investment and have greater trust that brand safety is actively managed and optimized.

AB: Seekr’s collaboration with journalists to counsel AI models sounds promising. How does this partnership contribute to reestablishing trust and contestability in content, especially considering the increasing demand for high-quality news amidst proliferating misinformation?

PL: Last year, we announced the launch of an independent Journalist Advisory Board. We comprised this board with accomplished journalists with diverse experiences and expertise who served a critical role in helping inform our AI.

Through their collective expertise and counsel, we have provided an AI model with a nuanced and textured understanding of journalistic standards. This has been foundational to Seekr’s AI, giving a greater ability to analyze news stories for quality and bias using natural language processing and machine learning.

AB: Lastly, could you discuss Seekr’s vision for the future of advertising within news environments, considering the complexities of digital media and the increasing importance of supporting quality journalism for both advertisers and society as a whole?

PL: Our vision for the future involves a multi-step approach to leading a new evolution of responsible media.

We want more nuanced brand safety and suitability that doesn’t unfairly demonetize legitimate content. Our LLMs and the work with SeekrFlow will help build customized AI that strengthens values, learns from data, and promotes brand values.

We created this platform to ensure the authenticity, credibility, and provenance of information in this new era. We are responsibly increasing reach and revenue for advertisers and publishers by maintaining a solid foundation built on trust.

The post How to Address MisInformation, Ad Brand Safety Concerns, and Keep Journalistic Integrity: A Q&A with Pat LaCroix of Seekr appeared first on AdMonsters.

Upon proposing the bill, California Assembly member Buffy Hicks said, “The CJPA provides a lifeline for news outlets – large, small, and ethnic – by directing a portion of the ad dollars back to the print, digital, and broadcast media that bear the entire cost of gathering and reporting local news while Big Tech bears none.” 

As digital media evolves, it has become increasingly harder for news publishers to monetize their content. Many are hustling and finding ways to broaden their content and revenue opportunities. It also has not helped that big tech has monopolized news content, according to industry experts. Wicks asserted that big tech was lining their pockets from local news content and emphasized that the bill aimed to compensate the publications generating that revenue fairly. 

Not surprisingly, big tech reacted strongly to this accusation. In 2021, Google and Facebook already threatened to block news content in response to a similar legislative proposal in Australia. Now, Google is adopting a similar stance with California Legislators. 

A Deeper Dive into the CJPA

The CJPA aims to shake up online big tech operations. Under current regulations, these platforms are only required to submit terms of service reports occasionally. But if this bill passes, they’ll have to cough up monthly or quarterly cash to digital journalism providers proportional to how much advertising money they rake in. 

To receive payment, news publishers must verify their eligibility—a process that platforms can challenge. The bill also prevents platforms from punishing news providers who stand up for their rights under the new rules. It stipulates how news publishers should use the funds to invest in news journalists and their support staff.

Additionally, the bill demands accountability. News publishers must publish annual reports detailing their fees, sources, and spending. This transparency applies to both the publishers receiving the funds and the platforms footing the bill. 

Google v. CJPA

On Friday, Google announced that it has begun blocking access to news for certain individuals in California. As a result, an unspecified number of California residents will be unable to access local news through Google searches. While opinions on this bill vary, some liken the Big G’s tactics to blackmail. 

The bill’s supporters argue that while this measure would provide much-needed support to the state’s struggling news organizations, which are experiencing significant job losses, Google contends that being obligated to pay a “link tax” for facilitating access to news articles for California residents is not feasible.

Jaffer Zaidi VP, Global News Partnerships at Google argues that since the search giant assists people in discovering news stories, publishers of all sizes can expand their audiences without any expense. CJPA would disrupt this model. 

The bill would prioritize media conglomerates and hedge funds advocating for its passage. In addition, he asserts that the funds from the CJPA could be used to continue purchasing local California newspapers, depleting them of journalists, and creating additional ghost papers that function with minimal staff to generate predominantly inexpensive and subpar content. 

“To be clear, we believe CJPA undermines news in California,” said Zaidi. “We don’t take these decisions lightly and want to be transparent with California publishers, lawmakers, and our users. To avoid an outcome where all parties lose, and the California news industry is left worse off, we urge lawmakers to take a different approach.”

The post What is the CJPA, and How Will it Affect News Publishers? appeared first on AdMonsters.

The advertising industry operates across various platforms: print, broadcast, radio, and digital. Advertisers wield significant power in shaping public narratives and influencing societal perceptions of diverse issues and individuals. 

As Pia Oberoi mentions in her opening remarks at the recent United Nations panel, Intersections Between Advertising and Human Rights, the industry invests plenty of money in global ad spend.

In 2023, digital ad spend is projected to reach a staggering $679 billion worldwide. With such substantial financial resources and pervasive outreach into households and communities, advertisers possess immense potential to affect lives positively or negatively, both online and offline.

Oberoi argues that ethical and informed decisions by industry players can channel advertising spend to support independent and trustworthy media. It can promote inclusive narratives, foster diversity, challenge stereotypes, and empower individuals and communities to enhance their lives and contribute to the betterment of others. 

However, when advertising decisions lack a conscious focus on human rights, there is a risk of funding disinformation and hate speech. This may not only fuel discrimination and hostility but can also incite real-world violence, perpetuating discrimination and other abuses unintentionally. As we watch human rights violations across the world and in our own countries, we must consider the ethics and moral responsibility of our professions. 

Positive Journalism, Bad Actors, and A Call To Action for Privacy

“We’re on a mission to address the economic link between advertising and harmful content because it is causing human rights harm around the world,” says Harriet Kingaby, Co-chair of the Conscious Advertising Network. Kingaby leads a network comprising over 180 organizations, including major brands, advertising agencies, and civil society groups, who all come together around that one goal. 

First, she emphasizes advertisers funding positive aspects of media, such as truthful journalism and entertainment. She also acknowledges how failing to invest in these types of outlets leads to disseminating hateful content and misinformation. 

But most of her talking points focused on a common criticism of the advertising industry — questionable data extraction and targeting practices. Kingaby asserts that bad actors have exploited these practices for their means. In her words, “Hate speech and misinformation are disrupting democracy, slowing our progress against global crises.”

We all know many of these practices have disregarded users’ privacy, but the advertising industry is working to appease its past mistakes, such as eliminating cookies and testing alternative solutions. As Dan Rua, CEO of Admiral, emphasizes, “Privacy consent is at the core of a publisher’s relationship with their visitors. The strongest relationships are built on mutual trust.” 

The industry is working to rebuild that trust, and Kingaby gives them a call to action: “This system will not fix itself. But coalitions of the willing will.” 

We Must Regulate How Humans Use AI

The industry is aware that unregulated AI can reshape human thinking and that freely distributed and unchecked content affects how society perceives information. You just have to log on to social media and see how users believe misinformation from a gossip blog that is rarely, if ever, fact-checked. 

Amir Malik, Managing Director at Accenture, compares the current state of media consumption to decades prior. He states, “In the 1900s, people saw about 50 human-created images in a lifetime. Now, we’re inundated with imagery due to AI, impacting everything from consumerism to politics.” 

Unfortunately, as Malik points out, some businesses disregard AI’s ethical considerations because it reduces production costs and enhances productivity. Additionally, as generative AI is a relatively new technology, we are still figuring out how much it impacts the human psyche, and thus, society at large. 

Platforms like Google are attempting policy changes, like flagging AI-generated content on YouTube, but AI’s potential impact on media demands further regulation. According to Malik, nations weaponize AI-driven propaganda via platforms. If that’s the case, we must establish governance and regulation to prevent the misuse of AI. 

Looking Toward a Solution

While much of the panel focused on the issues, they also offered some solutions.

Chris Hajecki is the Director of Ad For News, a media development nonprofit active in over 100 countries that aids advertisers in making informed decisions by curating inclusion lists of quality local news websites worldwide. 

The initiative aims to help move away from broad news exclusion policies, foster a transparent supply path, and ensure brand safety. It encourages investment in vital local news while mitigating the risk of inadvertently funding disinformation. Essentially, these inclusion lists advise advertisers on publishers that uphold ethical advertising and journalism standards. 

Hajekci said Ads For News upholds these standards by “embracing open sourcing, establishing in-country research teams, tailoring outputs to partners’ needs, and employing inclusive criteria. These standards evaluate legitimacy, journalist employment, and commitment to public interest without disseminating disinformation or hate speech.” 

Of course, safe advertising sites have created much discussion this year, especially on the topic of MFA site reformation. But how do we establish safe advertising standards while considering consumers’ human rights? 

Gerry D’Angelo, Senior Advisor at McKinsey & Company, believes that “aligning commercial interests with ethical considerations, such as not supporting misinformation or hate speech, while investing in quality journalism and entertainment” is a start.

The post United Nations Panel Urges The Advertising Industry to Consider The Intersections of Advertising and Human Rights appeared first on AdMonsters.