Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

http://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/d67uj/reddits_official_statement_on_prop_19_ads/

by holman • 16 years ago

140 99 16 years ago

reddit.com

jawher• 16 years ago

Because it doesn't want their money, so reddit is now running them for free:

http://www.reddit.com/r/ads/comments/d68xv/reddit_is_now_run...

auxbuss• 16 years ago

For those who have no idea what Prop 19 is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19

Basically, a marijuana legalisation proposal.

pstuart• 16 years ago

More of a "tax and regulate", which is a step towards legalization.

philwelch• 16 years ago

Well, it does legalize marijuana on the state level, and additionally taxes and regulates it. It may or may not be a de facto first step to federal deregulation.

riffic11• 16 years ago

marijuana is an obsolete slang term popularized by fear mongering racists to push a certain economic agenda.

the scientific term is cannabis; colloquially hemp. And we're asking for re-legalization, thanks.

[edit: why is this being downvoted? do you need proof?? here's your god damned proof -]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_(etymology)

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html

bhdz• 16 years ago

You're probably downvoted because of "fear mongering racists" & "economic agenda." Now you're left with the "scientific term" for marijuana which is fine but off-topic (which is Prop 19, Reddit & CN).

Ytiquette is not written anywhere here, but I suppose it follows Reddiquette guidelines to some extend.

PS: your link (http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html) looks like it comes from dubious, tinfoilhat-like source.

starnix17• 16 years ago

I wonder why Conde Nast even bought reddit in the first place.

It's cool that they let them run the web site as an independent entity more or less, but it really seems like they don't like supporting them (see Reddit Gold).

points5• 16 years ago

They probably thought they were buying a broad general "What news will look like in the future" website.

In fact they ended up with a liberal pro drug, pro gay, pro adblock, anti capitalism, anti consumerism, anti advertising, athiest website.

As time has gone on Reddits userbase seems to have become narrower and narrower even though it's obviously grown massively. Maybe it's groupthink at work, or maybe it's just come to be known as a hangout for liberals being outraged by stuff.

drivebyacct22• 16 years ago

I can't believe that comments like this are upmodded but yet HN has the audacity to tout some air of supremacy while laughing at the notion of a "digg vs reddit" flame war.

The community remains remarkably split on adblock use (especially on sites they like, etc). There are people that oppose plenty of drug use (calling pot a drug is disingenuous for shock factor of "calling out" reddit) and being antigay is yes, unpopular on a social voting news site, shocking.

guywithabike• 16 years ago

So... They didn't to a single minute of due diligence?

zavulon2• 16 years ago

Don't forget "anti-semitic". And before anyone even has the audacity to say "it's anti-Israel, not anti-semitic", this: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ccnir/im_gonna_get...

pbhjpbhj2• 16 years ago

>This was a decision made at the highest levels of Conde Nast.

Doesn't this put the lie to their "we're our own business and don't have anything to do with Conde Nast, that's why we need your charity" line?

michael_dorfman• 16 years ago

Nope; it confirms that the Reddit guys and their Conde Nast overlords don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, and that Reddit is not given the freedom (or resources, apparently) to run itself as it sees fit.

danilocampos• 16 years ago

Disappointing. The downside to liquidity events, I suppose.

pbhjpbhj2• 16 years ago

That's kinda my point - if reddit can not be allowed the freedom then CN (or AP or the Newhouse Family) have control over reddit and not reddit themselves. The donations requested are thus donations to the billionaire Newhouse cause and not to an independently run reddit.

That's just how it appears to me.

drivebyacct22• 16 years ago

No one ever said that. Ever.

ErrantX• 16 years ago

> Doesn't this put the lie to their "we're our own business and don't have anything to do with Conde Nast, that's why we need your charity" line?

The fact they have take the decision to run the ads for free possibly puts lie to ''that'' :)

famousactress2• 16 years ago

The fact that they're running them for free is kinda interesting. Going from corporate censoring the ads, to reddit essentially giving the campaign a huge contribution. It'll be interesting to see what the fall-out from this is.

ataggart• 16 years ago

What's the over/under on the complaints about corporate giveaways to political campaigns? I'll take the under.

ars• 16 years ago

If I were Conde Nast, the fallout would be firing them, and yes I'm aware this may kill reddit.

You were bought. Reddit does not belong to you, and you don't get to decide what to do with it.

If you can't handle that then you should never have sold, or in this case you should quit.

ojbyrne• 16 years ago

Well the higher-ups could actually have been honest when they said they just didn't want to benefit financially, and might have approved the free ads.

bluelu2• 16 years ago

I completely agree with you. Either you take the cash or you don't. But if you take the cash, you shouldn't be mourning afterwards about not having enough money (while spending close to 1/2 million a year on ec2) and not being able to decide which ads you run on the site you simply don't own anymore.

enjo2• 16 years ago

It's actually really interesting. I've read a lot of articles about the perils of Gen-Y in the workplace, what about when Gen-Y runs your portfolio company?

jrockway2• 16 years ago

The founders already did quit, right?

theBobMcCormick• 16 years ago

IMHO that'd make you a pretty crappy manager. Didn't Conde Nast pay something like 15 million for Reddit? And you'd make a decision that would, as you said, likely kill the site off over a little authority dispute? What a way to throw your money away.

malbiniak• 16 years ago

Since we're not allowed to benefit financially, reddit is now running the ads for free.

Nice hack, reddit.

points5• 16 years ago

It's farcical. It's just circlejerking. The idea that advertising pro-prop19 to Reddit would have made any sense in the first place is just ridiculous given that they're all pretty much uniformly in favor of it.

It's fun to watch them run around being outraged boycotting and generally wasting their own time though.

dailyrorschach• 16 years ago

Actually it makes a lot of sense to advertise to this group to ensure they do actually vote. You can't take your public for granted.

kevinpet• 16 years ago

Preaching to the choir is a great way to solicit contributions.

enjo2• 16 years ago

It's an important way to maintain voter awareness and actually motivate them to vote when they get the chance. In politics, it's often more important to advertise directly to your base than anywhere else.

jsz0• 16 years ago

I'm not familiar with Conde Nast's publications. Do they traditionally avoid political issue ads? If so I don't see any good reason why Reddit would be an exception. It sounds like they want to avoid the issue entirely and won't run anti Prob 19 ads either. I don't think that's unreasonable. I also have to question the value of any pro Prob 19 group spending money to advertise on Reddit. They'd be better off targeting the mainstream voter.

lreeves• 16 years ago

There's actually quite a few ads on Reddit that I've seen about "Avoiding the Obama Homesexual Agenda" (not to mention Scientology), so it seems more like Conde Nast is protecting their specific interests. Or at least, not allowing ads that oppose their views.

smallblacksun• 16 years ago

No, they are avoiding ads that they think will cost them money.

mrkurt• 16 years ago

To be fair, those are all served by Google, they're not direct sales (like the Prop 19 ones seemed to be). We (not reddit) spent lots of time blocking Scientology and other moronic adwords ads back when we were running adsense. They sprout up like weeds.

tomjen3• 16 years ago

Condo is a company that exist for one single reason - to make as much money as possible for their share holders. That is their legal requirment, so if they don't do that and leave money on the table they open the self up to liability from their share holders.

tullius• 16 years ago

They are a private company owned by the Newhouse family. They can do what they want.

maw• 16 years ago

The ones I'm familiar with are the New Yorker (respectable, and I was a subscriber when I lived in the US) and Wired (not so much, and no effin way), but I have a hard time imagining typical readers of either getting bent out of shape by marijuana use. (I mean, the New Yorker isn't the Atlantic!)

Less sure about their other rags, though.

tptacek6• 16 years ago

The Atlantic is pretty liberal too, and to whatever extent it isn't, it's libertarian.

tptacek6• 16 years ago

Conde Nast publishes The New Yorker and Vanity Fair, both of which are associated with "northeastern liberalism". The Prop 19 thing isn't an issue because it clashes with their portfolio; it doesn't.

riffic11• 16 years ago

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that. there is a deep entrenchment in the establishment to oppose hemp, for purely economic reasons.

the war on <s>drugs</s> cannabis is way too profitable for the so-called "northeastern liberalismists" to turn away from it.

riffic11• 16 years ago

too late, they've already ran anti-prop 19 ads:

http://www.reddit.com/r/prop19/duplicates/cx665/no_on_19_ad_...

cilantro2• 16 years ago

After all these years, it looks like the publishing industry is still threatened by marijuana.

farmerbuzz3• 16 years ago

Perhaps its not that they're threatened by marijuana but disinclined to accept controversial and divisive advertising?

wvenable2• 16 years ago

They already accept controversial and divisive advertising. Here is an example: http://i.imgur.com/pRN0K.jpg

scelerat• 16 years ago

Could be they're not threatened by marijuana so much as their other advertisers.

It's not difficult to imagine an account with much deeper pockets and an opposing agenda making it clear that if CN takes money from "pro-drug" advertisers, then they'll pull their own.

cilantro2• 16 years ago

I was mostly pointing out the irony that Conde Nast is continuing the legacy of William Randolph Hearst. My assertion isn't completely implausible though.

tzs• 16 years ago

Does running the ads for free count as a donation to the prop 19 campaign, and possibly trigger reporting obligations on the part of Conde Nast?

ahi• 16 years ago

I don't think so. http://www.sos.ca.gov/prd/campaign_info/forms_instructions/c...

From what I can tell you only have to report expenditures greater than $1000. Maybe

markkat• 16 years ago

Well, this will have the opposite effect. It seems Conde Nast doesn't understand their product very well.

ribsnchicken• 16 years ago

Your basic Streisand effect.

sliverstorm• 16 years ago

"As a corporation, Conde Nast does not want to benefit financially from this particular issue"

I think that's fair. I can't fault them for that.

thought_alarm• 16 years ago

Gentlemen, if you disable you ad blockers and visit Reddit you will see that the Prop 19 advert is now visible.

Ahh, green; the color of money.

huntero2• 16 years ago

Am I the only one who has no problem with a parent company not wanting pro-marijuana ads running on their sites? They legitimately own Reddit, it seems rather childish that Reddit is "rebelling" by running the ads for free.

jrockway2• 16 years ago

New media vs. old.

Conde Nast can retaliate somehow, but then all the users just get mad and go to the competitors, and Reddit becomse a Distant Memory Of The Past.

gbhn• 16 years ago

Why do you think they're rebelling? Isn't the most natural interpretation that the corporate statement ("we don't want to profit from this issue") is accurate, and that Conde Nast doesn't mind if Reddit runs the ads?

huntero2• 16 years ago

I guess the question is: Would Reddit have offered to run the Prop 19 ads for free even if Conde Nast hadn't told them not to run the ads at all?

I would say no, so it seems that the reason that the ads are running for free is because of the difference in opinion with the parent company. That's how I reasoned out "rebelling", although it's obviously a bit of hyperbole.

DougBTX• 16 years ago

Because he thinks that corporate-speak is not meant to be taken literally, and he is probably right. The sentiment is "don't run these ads," which is what they are rebelling against.

riffic11• 16 years ago

These ads are purely political. They are not ads for a product for sale, as in the case of a tobacco or liquor ad.

riffic11• 16 years ago

Title isn't true, Conde Naste has no problem running Prop. 19 ads, as long as your viewpoints align with theirs.

http://www.reddit.com/r/prop19/duplicates/cx665/no_on_19_ad_...

Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

Related Stories