hacklink hack forum hacklink film izle hacklink marsbahisizmir escortsahabetpornJojobetcasibompadişahbetBakırköy Escortcasibom9018betgit casinojojobetmarsbahismatbet

Tag: ads

  • Viral: X User Shares Pic Of “Human Ads” Walking On Street, Sparks Debate Online

    Viral: X User Shares Pic Of “Human Ads” Walking On Street, Sparks Debate Online

    Creative advertising and marketing ideas often go viral on social media – receiving attention for the uniqueness of their conception or execution. However, a recent viral ad example has received mixed reactions online for its unconventional approach. A person took to X to share a photo of “human ads” being used by a food delivery app. On closer inspection of the same, one can make out that the company in question is called Swish and that it is promising food delivery “in just 10 minutes.” The photo, reportedly taken in Bengaluru, shows people carrying the lit-up billboards on their backs as they walk on the street. Three such ads are visible in the viral post. Check it out below:

    Also Read: How A Frenchman Built A Rs 50 Crore Sandwich Business In Bengaluru

    The X post has received over 135K views so far. In the comments, some people have expressed curiosity about how successful such ads can be. A few have pointed out that this is not the first time “human billboards” have been deployed by a brand. On the other hand, many X users claimed that the concept made them feel disturbed/uncomfortable. Some called it “dehumanising”. Check out some of the reactions below.

    “Worse kind of advertising.”

    “If I see ads like this, I will find the option to block that app in the PlayStore.”

    “I don’t know how one sees this and doesn’t feel sick in their stomach.”

    “I can’t put a word to it but seems weirdly inhumane.”

    “Nothing new… come to Delhi you will see this all over the place… Sarojini , Lajpat, KB, KNags list is pretty long…”

    “Imagine you are in a park, want to relax and these people start walking with bright advertisements. Same on busy street as well. It might lead to negative publicity.”

    “Maybe it’s just me, but human ads make me so sad, they’re walking around with that heavy thing on their backs for god knows how long.”

    NDTV Food has reached out to Swish for a comment but they have not yet responded.



    Source link

  • Globe editorial: Time to ante up on sports betting ads

    Globe editorial: Time to ante up on sports betting ads

    Forgive us for disrespecting an old Rodney Dangerfield joke, but we went to a betting parlour the other night and a hockey game broke out.

    Such is the state of advertising for sports betting in Canada. Anyone who has recently watched a National Hockey League game, or any other professional sport, gets the joke.

    Viewers’ synapses are inundated with ads for online betting during sports broadcasts. The CBC teamed up with researchers in Britain this year and found that there are almost three pro-gambling messages per minute during games.

    This is happening even as evidence shows that problem gambling is harming hundreds of thousands of adults and children around the world, including Canada.

    Other countries – Britain, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy and Australia – have taken concrete steps to limit advertising for online gambling. But in Canada’s multijurisdictional regulatory environment, the rules are so inconsistent as to be irrelevant.

    Fixing that will require a federal framework for sports betting advertising of the kind that already exists for alcohol and tobacco. Which is why the House of Commons must quickly enact a Senate bill to create just such a framework.

    Bill S-269 has been passed at third reading in both houses of Parliament but is being held up, like other bills, by the political shenanigans of the Trudeau government.

    With the House at a standstill over the government’s refusal to comply with an order to produce documents related to the Sustainable Development Technology Canada scandal, the bill is at risk of not making it across the finish line.

    There are only 22 more sitting days to enact it before the House rises for the holidays. If the Liberals needed another reason to bow to the inevitable and do what the House ordered them to do, making Bill S-269 into law is a good one.

    Every day the urgent need to address the issue of sports betting advertising goes unheeded will harm Canadians.

    Ottawa decriminalized single-event sports betting in Canada in 2021. The federal government’s stated goal at the time was to take betting on the outcome of a single game, or on various events within a single game (such as who scores first), out of the hands of “a black market that evaded taxes and directed funds to organized crime.”

    The change was also supposed to let bettors operate in a “regulated and safe environment, at the discretion of the provinces and territories.”

    But that environment is regulated inconsistently, with different rules in different provinces, and it can in no way be considered safe for children or for people with gambling addictions to watch a hockey game on Saturday night and be exposed to relentless pro-gambling messaging.

    The rush of companies into the online gambling space (there were 49 different gambling companies operating 72 different gambling websites in Ontario alone in December, 2023) has resulted in a glut of advertising extolling the ease of making bets on a smartphone.

    The participation of hockey players in some advertising, combined with sponsored segments during game broadcasts devoted to the odds, have contributed to the normalization of gambling.

    Marty Deacon, the Ontario senator who tabled Bill S-269, said last week that 7 per cent of Canadians already meet the criteria for problem gambling, and that the rates are even higher among younger Canadians aged 18 to 34, reaching 15 per cent.

    Her bill gives Ottawa a year to negotiate national standards for advertising with the provinces and territories, and to develop a plan for implementing those standards consistently across the country.

    The framework would be similar to rules for alcohol, which regulate the content, message, location and timing of booze advertising, and to prohibit associating booze with social status or with the idea that drinking is necessary for the enjoyment of an event, among other things.

    Canada is lucky in one way. Other countries that legalized sports betting long before this one, such as Britain, have learned the hard way that unregulated advertising is an invitation to widespread problem gambling, and have had to correct course.

    We are still new to the game and have the opportunity to get it right. The MPs in the House need to make sure they don’t blow this chance, and enact Bill S-269 before Christmas.

    Source link

  • TikTok let through disinformation in political ads despite its own ban, Global Witness finds

    TikTok let through disinformation in political ads despite its own ban, Global Witness finds

    SAN FRANCISCO — Just weeks before the U.S. presidential election, TikTok approved advertisements that contained election disinformation even though it has a ban on political ads, according to a report published Thursday by the nonprofit Global Witness.

    The technology and environmental watchdog group submitted ads that it designed to test how well systems at social media companies work in detecting different types of election misinformation.

    The group, which did a similar investigation two years ago, did find that the companies — especially Facebook — have improved their content-moderation systems since then.

    But it called out TikTok for approving four of the eight ads submitted for review that contained falsehoods about the election. That’s despite the platform’s ban on all political ads in place since 2019.

    The ads never appeared on TikTok because Global Witness pulled them before they went online.

    “Four ads were incorrectly approved during the first stage of moderation, but did not run on our platform,” TikTok spokesman Ben Rathe said. “We do not allow political advertising and will continue to enforce this policy on an ongoing basis.”

    Facebook, which is owned by Meta Platforms Inc., “did much better” and approved just one of the eight submitted ads, according to the report.

    In a statement, Meta said while “this report is extremely limited in scope and as a result not reflective of how we enforce our policies at scale, we nonetheless are continually evaluating and improving our enforcement efforts.”

    Google’s YouTube did the best, Global Witness said, approving four ads but not letting any publish. It asked for more identification from the Global Witness testers before it would publish them and “paused” their account when they didn’t. However, the report said it is not clear whether the ads would have gone through had Global Witness provided the required identification.

    Google did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

    Companies nearly always have stricter policies for paid ads than they do for regular posts from users. The ads submitted by Global Witness included outright false claims about the election — such as stating that Americans can vote online — as well as false information designed to suppress voting, like claims that voters must pass an English test before casting a ballot. Other fake ads encouraged violence or threatened electoral workers and processes.

    Source link

  • You use Spotify to listen to music. Here’s how money from ads and subscription fees flows to artists

    You use Spotify to listen to music. Here’s how money from ads and subscription fees flows to artists

    LOS ANGELES — Every day, millions of people use Spotify to stream music. A few years ago, it would’ve felt like an impossibility: Click, and bam — a seemingly endless catalog of recorded music opens up, right at your fingertips.

    Streaming now accounts for most of the money generated by the music industry — a whopping 84% in the United States, according to the RIAA, and 67.3% worldwide, according to a 2024 report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which tracks global sales.

    Spotify is the largest platform of all — making up roughly 31% of the total market share — with a reported 626 million users and 246 million subscribers in over 180 markets.

    In July, Spotify increased its monthly subscription cost. So, how does money from advertisers and subscription fees move from Spotify to artists’ wallets, anyway?

    Short answer: They don’t. Spotify pays roughly two-thirds of each dollar it makes from music streams — a collection of paid subscriptions and advertiser income — to the rights holders of the music on its platform, paid out between recording and publishing agreements.

    Those rights holders usually comprise a combination of record labels, distributors, aggregators and collecting societies — think Sony, Warner, Universal, the digital music licensing organization Merlin that represents independent labels — who then pay their artists according to their contracts.

    If an artist is self-distributed, they might pay a small fee to an aggregator, or upload service (some popular ones include DistroKid and TuneCore).

    A self-distributed artist keeps “the vast majority of (the royalties),” explains Charlie Hellman, the vice president and global head of music product at Spotify. Or it “goes to their label and their publisher.”

    Payments to rights holders are determined by a process called streamshare.

    Once Spotify pays the rights holders, “we sort of lose visibility of exactly what happens after that,” Hellman says.

    When you walk into a store and buy an album, a percentage of that amount goes directly to an artist. When it comes to streaming, subscription dollars are collected into one large pool and paid out via streamshare, a number Spotify calculates by adding up how many times music owned or controlled by a particular rights holder was streamed in a month, in each market and dividing it by the total number of streams in that market.

    Most streaming platforms use streamshare: Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, etc.

    Hellman explains that “whatever fraction of streams” a rights holder has on Spotify is “the fraction of the total payouts that are paid out” to them. “We calculate that per market,” he says.

    So, if a rights holder like Universal Music Group accounted for half of all the streams in the U.S., they’d “get half of all the revenue generated in the U.S.”

    Liz Pelly, a journalist whose first book, “Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist,” will be published in 2025, says the streamshare system has been criticized for “benefitting the artists who generate the most streams” and “the major labels who already have, like, so much market share.”

    In the last few years, she’s seen artists organizations and independent artists unions call for a shift to a user-centric system. Under that system, royalties would be paid directly to the rights holders based on what each user streamed. Essentially, if you only listened to Charli XCX this month, she and the rights holders of her music would receive roughly two-thirds of the revenue generated from your subscription.

    You might have seen a popular metric that suggests artists make, on average, somewhere between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream. But because streaming platforms don’t pay artists directly, that number isn’t exactly accurate.

    “This concept of the per stream rate is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the music industry,” says Hellman. “There is no per stream rate.”

    He uses an example: Say, for the ease of understanding, a listener spends $10 on their monthly subscription. Three of those dollars go to Spotify, the other seven go to rights holders. (Currently, the individual subscription plan is now $11.99, not $9.99.)

    “If they played only one stream in the month, the per stream payout would be $7 per stream. But if they played (700) streams in that month, then the per stream effective payout would be a penny,” he says.

    Pelly says artists deduce they make “penny fractions” in royalties by looking at their statements. “And that is meaningful.”

    They are “symbolically important,” she adds, if inexact, “because they communicate the reality that a lot of artists are seeing, like, very little pay from digital services.”

    Los Angeles experimental artist Julia Holter, whose sixth studio album “Something in the Room She Moves” was released in March, says artists do receive what adds up to penny fractions.

    “The current Spotify model does not work for most artists, in that you cannot easily make a living solely from streams,” she says. “The math here is so complicated, which is part of the issue.”

    “There are so many artists that struggle to make a career in the streaming era because things are set up in ways that are inaccessible and opaque,” Pelly adds.

    And many musicians do not make music in ways that are “specifically tailored to the way in which streaming services generate money… The system is set up to reward artists that generate massive numbers of streams.”

    Not all music functions that way, she says. There are “certain artists that make the kind of music that maybe you wouldn’t stream in the background for hours on end, or who make music in long-form compositions, not in, like, short two-, three-minute tracks that you could load up a playlist with.”

    In 2024, Holter is one of those artists — it has been five years since her last solo album, and her latest release features a few six-minute tracks. If streaming demands churning-out short songs — viewing “music as content,” she says it is “antithetical to creative people.”

    In April, Spotify began eliminating all payments for songs with less than 1,000 annual streams in an effort to drive revenue to what it calls “emerging and professional artists”. As a result, those with a bigger percentage of streamshare revenue will receive an even larger share — pooled from artists with few streams.

    Hellman argues that because there is a minimum threshold to be met when withdrawing money from a distributor, artists with under 1,000 annual streams aren’t able to collect their royalties. (At DistroKid, it is $5.35; at TuneCore it is $1 via PayPal.)

    “There was an increasing amount of uploaders that had $0.03, $0.08, $0.36 sitting there,” he said. “All those pennies sitting in bank accounts all over the place was siphoning money away from artists that were really doing this, as an aspiring professional.”

    In May, Spotify announced it would add audiobooks into its premium subscriptions, resulting in a lower royalty rate for U.S. songwriters, according to Billboard. They estimate that songwriters and publishers will earn $150 million less in U.S. mechanical royalties from premium, duo and family plans for the first 12 months it is in effect.

    Politicians are taking note. In March, U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Jamaal Bowman introduced the Living Wage for Musicians Act in partnership with artists and industry laborers in the United Musicians and Allied Workers organization.

    The bill proposes a new streaming royalty, to be paid into an Artist Compensation Royalty Fund, which would ensure artists receive at least one cent per stream. It’s a direct payment from streaming services to artists, with no middlemen.

    The new royalty would be funded through a 10% levy of streaming platforms’ non-subscription revenues and an additional subscription fee.

    The act is “suggesting that the current system isn’t working for artists,” says Pelly.

    Holter, who works with UMAW, is optimistic about the bill, suggesting that “if streamers are going to increase prices anyway,” this is an opportunity to make sure artists, and not only major label artists, are compensated equitably — without fundamentally altering how the system currently works.

    “I think this will benefit everyone,” she says. “Including the streamers.”

    Earlier this year, Hellman had no comment on the act but underlined that the easiest way to get to a penny per play is to get people to stream less.

    “I think fixating on what that ‘average revenue compared to total number of plays’ looks like is really distracting us from what it is that we’re trying to do as an industry, which is get more people to pay more money for music so that we can pay that to the artists and the rights holders,” he says.

    “Spotify has every incentive to maximize the revenue because we get to share in 30% of it. And so, we’ve been raising prices,” he says.

    “We will continue to raise prices as much as we can. That’s going to maximize the revenue. But if you raise prices too much or you constrain the value too much, you’re going to get people churning out of subscription, going back to less productive behaviors like piracy. And I don’t think anyone wants to see those kinds of things happen.”

    Source link