Who’s to blame for dishonest ads?

Alright, everyone has seen these ads right? We all know that they are scams right? Here’s what I don’t get. Why do major sites like weather.com, NBC, Fox, MSN, etc. allow these people to get away with this? I’m telling you right now that ads like these do nothing to help any website. I want to attack Yabuka.com for facilitating this filth, but really I have to blame the webmasters of the sites that these things appear on, because they have the power to block this crap. Yabuka, as much as I don’t like these people, are simply using the system available to them, and no one has called them to task for it.

The top ad takes you to one of those one page high-pressure sales pitches that don’t tell you anything actually about their product, only about their “results” with references to nebulous research. They also incorporate magazine covers from Beauty magazine and others, without ever referencing them – giving the impression that their product is somehow related to these results. Unethical and disgusting.

The car insurance ad takes you to a faceless insta-quote auto insurance site, where you enter your zip code and get an “insta-quote”. Bad. Leave it alone.

The last ad takes you to a penny auction site…you know what? It’s fraud. Plain and simple. Here is an interesting article from MSNBC, which ironically allows the same ads from Yabuka.com on them. And I blame MSNBC for this!!! These major groups should be monitoring the integrity of their ads. They have the executive power to block these groups, so why don’t they? Why are they not being called to task? I mean, it’s their site, their integrity on the line, and they allow it because these people, what, give them more money? Get it together people!

4 thoughts on “Who’s to blame for dishonest ads?

  1. Randy

    There are really 3 tiers of ad networks and lets face it, all of them have their issues.

    1st tier (somewhat credible ads)
    1. Google
    2. yahoo
    3. Adblade
    4. Chitika
    5. Undertone
    6. Industry Brains

    2nd Teir (ads are getting questionable)
    1. AOL/Quigo/Ad Sonar
    2, MSN
    3. Collective
    4. Ad Brite
    5. Vibrant media

    3rd Tier (the worst of the worst)
    1. Pulse 360
    2. WAM
    3. Yabuka
    4. Click Booth
    5. Zedo

  2. Jerry

    I know this is an older post but I was compelled to post a reply. I love this article because I hate those ads. For one thing, as to your main point, they really do a lot to cheapen the site they are shown on. The ads are all of the same “flavor”, if you will, in that they often try to be local by using a local town and then it’s always uses “Mom” or “Teacher” or something to try to make it seem like an everyday person has discovered the trick to something, and it has caused outrage among professionals in the field it involves. For instance, it might say “Glendale mom finds secret to looking 20 years younger, plastic surgeons furious”
    They also sort of misrepresent themselves as news rather than advertisements in the brief headline style they employ, and the list style where they kind of take on a look of an “other stories” kind of side bar. I’m sure these ads trick lots of people who are more naive than I am, and it really reads poorly on the sites that host them. As you alluded, I think an ad being run on these large, mainstream, theoretically reputable, sites gives the reader a feeling that they are pre-approved as safe and reputable, when, in fact, they seem to be much more unscrupulous.

    Incidentally, the title of this post uses the wrong form of whose/who’s; it should be “Who’s” as in “Who is to blame”. Whose would be the possessive form, as in “Whose car is that?”

    1. admin Post author

      Thanks for the edit Jerry. It’s sad that this is the first time anyone has noticed the error. I appreciate it! I’m glad you agree with me. Of course, many of these sites don’t really seem to care about their integrity. I hate to say it’s because the price is right, but that’s really the only reason.

  3. Bob

    I know this is years after the fact, but I would have to agree with your point on the Webmaster’s being the ones to take a lot of the blame. It is as the discretion of the sites, where these ads are being shown, what type of ads they allow and what kind of guidelines they expect the ads to follow.

    One point I didn’t really see is the blame of the advertisers themselves, have to keep in mind that the advertising sites listed are middle-men. They manage the ads for the websites (their customers) and try to get them their best results by, as you said, using what is available to them. What products end up being scams or claims of research aren’t generally created by these advertising sites but rather by the advertisers trying to push these offers themselves through the platform.

    This isn’t to say the advertising sites (WAM, Click Booth, Pulse 360, etc) don’t share in any of the blame when it comes to bending the rules within the guidelines set by Webmaster’s to keep scams out. However, I feel this argument is similar to blaming a company like Amazon.com or Overstock.com for pushing poor, overstated products. Where in reality they are just a medium for the providers (in this case the advertisers) to use in order to get sales at a wider available market(global websites) than they would have access to as a solo act.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *