Why is their fitness only for gay men anyhow? Can't straight men lose weight the same way?
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
lol yea a special fitness program based on sexual orientation seems a bit odd to me as well ...
modemlooper
· 1 year ago
its a gay social network for gay men into sports and athletics. so the ad is very relevant to their target just not for a mashable audience.
Ben
· 1 year ago
Err well don't really wana be the one to tell u this but straight men dnt have sex with other men (and thats probably what they mean by work out and lose weight)
so yeh its pretty dam different lol :P
modemlooper
· 1 year ago
sex sells sex sells sex sells sex sells sex sells sex sells sex sells !
I wouldnt mind really as people will click on scant clad bodies. i've done testing on ads with no sexy and with sexy and sexy is always twice as many clicks.
now realjock is a thinly veiled porn site. Its not nudity but its really crossing the line of athlete and porn model.
jrrrl
· 1 year ago
since gold's and gnc ads have pictures of topless men, i assume you mean the ad is pg-13 because it acknowledges the existence of gay people. i don't think even bush/mccain would go that far.
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
I haven't seen those ads if they exist ... Maybe not a perfect example but I was thinking more the vitamin ads I see for GNC and the ads Gold's actually shows when you're at the gym, which feature people wearing athletic apparel.
mitcha
· 1 year ago
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Richard Ludlow
· 1 year ago
Great post, Adam. It shouldn't be difficult for Google to rate the ads themselves as G, PG, or PG-13 and have publishers select which ad ratings they're willing to select. The default setting could be PG, while bloggers could select G (perhaps if they write about children's or religious issues) or PG-13 (for sex/gossip blogs) if they so choose.
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
exactly ... other ad networks have done this for years
AKz
· 1 year ago
Targeted ads?
chatteress
· 1 year ago
Do those ads only show up in the Google reader? Because I don't see them in my feed reader.
Adam Ostrow
· 1 year ago
that ad was in Google Reader, and I assume it shows up in all feed readers - just not every time, as that is based on how many impressions that the advertiser purchased.
chatteress
· 1 year ago
Thanks Adam, I'm thinking the ads might be geo located as well unless it's my feed reader that is blocking them because I can't remember the last time I saw an ad in Mashable's feed.
Shan
· 1 year ago
Looks like a lot of gay men read mashable but you guys are just not aware of it! Ha, the joke's on you. No seriously. Although google rotates it's ads and does some experimentations, adsense is a highly evolved product and is extremely good at targeting. You might be surprised how many people would click on an ad which you thought no one would click on.
Put simply, google _knows_ how to run an ad business. You can opt out if you want, but I suggest you stick with what they offer and you will be surprised how well it works.
modemlooper
· 1 year ago
is this a gay issue? saying someone is gay does not make the rating go up. That would be like saying a black ad or whatever else would be bad as well.
so your saying a topless guy is ok as long as it doesnt say its gay??
This seems like an attack on gay men than a post about the relevancy of google ads. I mean c'mon we all no the ads served are not always correct.
Who ever made the bush/MCain comment above was right. This is low for mashable to attack a subset of culture.
Tev
· 1 year ago
I don't feel there's anything PG-13 about that ad.
Also: I think more people will have formed a negative perception of the Mashable brand because of the way you reacted to it. It came across as borderline homophobic, "don't get me wrong" or not.
Stalyn
· 1 year ago
firefox?
Burak
· 1 year ago
...and AdBlock Plus. Very nicely removes these ads from Google Reader.
John
· 1 year ago
The fact that Google and other contextual ad networks sometimes misfire -- both to the annoyance of the publisher and advertiser -- is very old news indeed.
Let's be clear about what this story really is: homophobic linkbait. I don't think any "professional news organization" (to quote the author) would have let this out the door.
I'll get my tech news at TechCrunch from now on. Very disappointing.
whlooi
· 1 year ago
OMG, this is a real issue here. Luckily I haven’t seen those ads if they exist on my site . Touch wood!!
All Comments
Why is their fitness only for gay men anyhow? Can't straight men lose weight the same way?
so yeh its pretty dam different lol :P
I wouldnt mind really as people will click on scant clad bodies. i've done testing on ads with no sexy and with sexy and sexy is always twice as many clicks.
now realjock is a thinly veiled porn site. Its not nudity but its really crossing the line of athlete and porn model.
Put simply, google _knows_ how to run an ad business. You can opt out if you want, but I suggest you stick with what they offer and you will be surprised how well it works.
so your saying a topless guy is ok as long as it doesnt say its gay??
This seems like an attack on gay men than a post about the relevancy of google ads. I mean c'mon we all no the ads served are not always correct.
Who ever made the bush/MCain comment above was right. This is low for mashable to attack a subset of culture.
Also: I think more people will have formed a negative perception of the Mashable brand because of the way you reacted to it. It came across as borderline homophobic, "don't get me wrong" or not.
Let's be clear about what this story really is: homophobic linkbait. I don't think any "professional news organization" (to quote the author) would have let this out the door.
I'll get my tech news at TechCrunch from now on. Very disappointing.