For years, digital advertising promised a simple formula: more data, more automation, better results.
But two recent developments suggest marketers may want to rethink one of the most basic assumptions in modern media planning — that where your ads appear doesn’t matter as much as how they’re targeted.
It turns out context may be more important than ever.
Don't get me wrong. I’m a firm believer that good marketing requires a multi-channel approach.
Consumers move through a sales funnel in different ways. Some discover brands through social. Some through search. Some through video, events, print, or trusted news sources. A strong strategy recognizes that different channels play different roles in that journey.
But too often, advertisers become obsessed with the latest advertising trend or the newest dashboard promising perfect attribution.
Right now, that trend is heavily centered on automated digital advertising and programmatic buying.
Two recent stories highlight why marketers may want to take a closer look at the environments where their ads appear.
A recent report cited by Business Insider found that online advertising has become the largest distribution channel for malware on the internet.
According to digital security firm The Media Trust, advertising accounted for more than 60% of malware and phishing campaigns in 2025, overtaking email scams and direct hacks as the primary method used by cybercriminals.
Much of this activity flows through programmatic advertising systems, which rely on automated auctions and complex networks of vendors to place ads across the internet in real time.
That complexity creates opportunity—not just for legitimate advertisers, but also for bad actors.
Cybercriminals can inject malicious ads into the system, exploit the sprawling adtech supply chain, and target vulnerable users with increasingly sophisticated tactics. Add in AI-generated ads and deepfakes, and the problem becomes even harder to detect.
Ironically, while brands spend billions protecting their own brand safety, consumers themselves are often left exposed to the risks of a system built for scale and automation.
At the same time the open digital ad ecosystem is becoming more complex—and sometimes more risky—another reality is emerging.
People are consuming more news.
Research cited in Adweek shows that 43% of Americans say they are consuming more news than they were a year ago, and self-described news followers check news as many as 25 times per day.More importantly for advertisers, news environments generate something increasingly rare online: active attention.
Eye-tracking studies show traditional news content produces about 20% more ad-attention seconds than softer content, along with a 77% lift in brand recall.
This isn’t passive scrolling.
It’s intentional engagement.
And despite long-standing brand safety concerns, research consistently shows that ads placed next to news content perform just as well as ads placed next to entertainment or lifestyle content.
In fact, consumers often respond positively to brands that support journalism. One study found 84% of consumers say their trust in a brand stays the same or increases when they see ads alongside news content.
Research from the 2025 Nebraska Statewide Study conducted by Coda Ventures reinforces this point locally. The study found that Nebraska newspapers remain one of the most trusted sources of information in their communities, with readers consistently ranking them among the most credible media outlets available.
That trust matters for advertisers. When ads appear in environments readers already trust, they benefit from the credibility of the surrounding content.
One of the biggest mistakes advertisers make is trying to compare news environments with the broader digital ecosystem using the same metrics.
The most common example is CPM.
On paper, programmatic ads can look incredibly efficient because CPMs are often extremely low.
But there’s a reason for that.
The open digital ad ecosystem is built around massive scale. Inventory is abundant. Automation drives prices down. And not all impressions represent the same level of engagement or quality.
News environments, by contrast, tend to deliver premium audiences in trusted contexts.
They attract readers who are engaged, informed, and often highly influential in their communities. They also offer something increasingly difficult to replicate online: editorial credibility and audience trust.
Comparing those environments purely on price misses the bigger picture.
A cheaper impression isn’t always a better one.
The Coda Ventures study also highlights something marketers often overlook: newspaper audiences are highly engaged audiences. Readers aren’t just skimming headlines—they are spending time with content that informs their daily lives and communities.
That kind of attention is difficult to replicate in environments built around endless scrolling.
This isn’t just a theoretical conversation.
Several years ago, Procter & Gamble made headlines when it cut more than $100 million from its digital advertising budget, largely due to concerns about fraud, brand safety, and ineffective placements.
Despite the cuts, the company reported no negative impact on its business results.
The move forced the industry to confront an uncomfortable question: how much digital advertising was actually driving results, and how much was simply producing impressive dashboards?
None of this means digital advertising doesn’t work.
It absolutely can.
But it does suggest that where your ads appear matters just as much as how they are targeted.
For advertisers, the lesson isn’t to abandon digital or automation.
It’s to think more carefully about context, trust, and audience engagement.
Programmatic systems deliver reach and efficiency.
But trusted news environments deliver attention, credibility, and influence.
Those are different types of value.
And smart marketing strategies recognize the difference.
At a time when misinformation is rising, attention is fragmented, and trust online is increasingly fragile, supporting quality journalism can also support stronger marketing outcomes.
That’s not just good for publishers.
It’s good for brands.
And it’s good for consumers.
Note: Artificial intelligence tools were used to assist with research, organization, and drafting of this article. All analysis, perspectives, and final edits are my own.