Originally Posted by Noonan (Post 13600705)

Does whoever signs these contracts not understand that ripping software is not allowed on this site or are they accepting contracts from anyone who's willing to advertise?

In other words, could we start seeing ads for guns/tobacco because some business thought it would be beneficial to advertise here?

Originally Posted by Dan (Post 13600713)

Plain and simple: If a company can advertise Product/Service in Category X on this site, then it is completely illogical to suggest that users of the forum of this site cannot have conversations about Products, Services, or Category X.

If I want to talk about "business cards" because I see an ad at the bottom of the page that says "50% off business cards!", then I should be free to do so. It might not garner much discussion because... who cares about business cards.

If someone can advertise business card services, I should be able to talk about business cards.

If someone can advertise DVD ripping software, I should be able to talk about DVD ripping software.


I get that "contracts must be honored!" but as long as they're being honored, then the topics or categories of those advertisements should not be banned during that duration of time.

Originally Posted by IBJoel (Post 13600719)

There has been no policy change of the forum rules.

Originally Posted by Meathead (Post 13600802)

Except for IB itself.

I get that the IB sales staff handles all IB sites not just DVDTalk and may not be privy to specific forum rules. But after the dust up last year over the SPONSORED ripping software... it should have been clear to the sales staff that ripping ads aren't allowed on DVDTalk. Guess not.

Originally Posted by kefrank (Post 13601049)

The thing is, any given sales person shouldn't have to know. For all we know, the entire sales staff might have turned over since then. And it really doesn't matter that none of them are on this forum to have some sort of tribal knowledge about our rules. What there should be is a clearly documented and enforced policy that every sales person follows. It really shouldn't be that hard. How is it that the sales staff doesn't sell sponsored ads for pornographic DVDs, for example? Presumably there are ad categories that they are not allowed to sell, per policy. Why isn't DVD ripping software part of that policy by now??

Originally Posted by IBJoel (Post 13602477)

As I am not part of the sales team, I do not have a say on what their specific policies are, but do offer feedback from you guys and my personal feelings on it (since I handle editorial and therefore liaise with studios, I have an interest in this as well).

Originally Posted by IBJoel (Post 13603796)

So I heard back from our head of sales. Official corporate policy is that we do not advertise tobacco and pornography, although advertisement does not equal endorsement. She will be speaking with all our reps to avoid this occurring in the future.

Originally Posted by Decker (Post 13617103)

Okay, so I am seeing this ad on your site now. I'm not 100% sure it's pornography, but it has scarred my psyche for sure. I am putting up the image behind spoilers, consider yourself warned. I'm not completely sure it's what I think it is, but it certainly could be. Again this is exactly what I was seeing on the side of my screen and I "wish" I wasn't

I did report it as inappropriate and hopefully never see it again.

Originally Posted by IBJoel (Post 13617366)

Good Lord. Unfortunately, Wish.com ads are supplied by a third-party (looks like Google AdSense). I'll see what we can do.

Originally Posted by Decker (Post 13617380)

Thank you. "Reporting" it to Google Ads for Offensive content did not stop the ad from appearing on the computer yesterday.

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man (Post 13617157)

Looks like I found my Halloween costume!

Originally Posted by Norm de Plume (Post 13618117)

Ugh, it's not even cut.

Originally Posted by cultshock (Post 13618133)

:eek:

Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Jabroni (Post 13619146)

Here's the wish.com ad that I keep getting

Originally Posted by TomOpus (Post 13619256)

That -90% pic was the one I had. Wasn't sure what it's supposed to be but I reported it. Haven't seen it since.