News publisher SF appeal claims adsense warned that " ..it has three days to remove editorial content that violates its advertising policy"

0 comments

Apparenty, there is some drama  and  advertising policy intrigue between the SF Appeal and Google Adsense ...

In Znet article, featuring statement from Google and SF appeal Editor and Publisher Eva Batey, .....I think this article shows a great case for improving transparancy regarding adsense content guidelines violations to publishers...

The argument can be summed up as, "Arbitrary emails like this  [alert emails about violations to advertising policy] certainly seem to say that the advertiser (in this case, Google) thinks it's OK to dictate what we publish."

Batey is also concerned about the vaugeness of googles email. The lack of transparancy at Google has long been a concern for advertisers, publishers and SEO's, this seems to be another example. Batey states,   ( this is my quote of the week - BTW ), "I'm not arguing that a column about flatulence is the height of journalism (though it is a good column!). But this email is so non-specific: what are we supposed to remove? I don't know, and Google's not telling us."

(note though: all advertising parters have to agree to advertising policy)

Google  responded to znet  saying:

"We don't comment on specific publishers, but below is a general statement. Also here is more on our adult content policies. Your headline is inaccurate -- we don't require publishers to change their content. They cannot run ads against content that is not in line with the policies (so they could take the ads off those pages and still run them elsewhere on the site)."

To which Eva Batey retorted...

"Given the email sent to us by Google, then, Google's remark that "they could take the ads off those pages and still run them elsewhere on the site" isn't accurate."

"That said, this response does a terrible job of even pretending to address the question posed, nor the issues raised in your report."

Batey added  the following analogy to illustrate...

"If Google were, say, a major grocery store chain, and the major grocery store chain told a television network that it was likely going to pull its advertising from the network because it violated the grocery store's standards, then sent a vague list (none of which appears applicable to the network's content) of things that violate those standards, we would all be talking about what out-of-touch fools the grocery store chain is, and how it seemed like they were trying to bully a network into changing its content."

Here is the full article