Hacker News Reader

Comment by tartoran | Hacker News Reader

Who pays to have their ads displayed by a chumbox? Probably smaller players but I can't imagine a reputable company to post ads in that toxic environment, it really does look bad.

View on HN

Major new sites, mostly magazine publishers, were doing this. Washington Post, TIME, Newsweek, and CNN as I recall. Five-thirt-eight according to comments here. Some may have dropped them by now, many were discussing this as negative brand value within recent years.

Previous discussion:

https://themargins.substack.com/p/taboola-outbrain-and-the-c... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20409693)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/business/media/online-adv... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21175145)

They're talking about the other end of things - the companies placing ads, not the ones hosting them.

The answer is "sleazy bottomfeeders", if the Taboola ads I've seen are any indication. Supplements, worthless insurance, colon cleansers, and the like.

That is correct. I've seen tabula/outbrain around on cnn/bbc/time etc until I blocked it and am aware that these publishers make use of taboola/outbrain for revenue. However, I was wondering what company puts the actual advert through these deceptive bottomfeeders.

Ah, got it.

Ad arbitrage - essentially buy a click on Taboola for $0.20 and send the user to your sham website that displays ads from a separate network (Ad sense, Facebook, or one of the seedier options) and hope you get that user to click an ad that pays you $0.22. Make a little bit of money while making the world a little bit worse.

Smaller players? I know a "small" biz that does $45,000 a day with Taboola. They do it because sadly their scammy ads work on vulnerable population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com