Corpus Reports: Brand Safety Surveillance and Analytics Perimeters Watch.

New: Corpus Reports.
Easy to read, Easy to share.

We are delighted to introduce within our Customer User Interface, a new feature coming from the feedback we’ve collected:

“How to get a daily report on the Corpus I’m using for an ad campaign or analytics on a product launch?”, “I want to share this report with my management, so no learning curve, must be straight forward”

Well, here it is. In the Customer UI, there is a new “Report” button. At any time you can get a PDF of what your Corpus is made of and share it amongst your team or/and client for review or approval.

Brand Safety Surveillance.

Let’s take an example: You are running an ad campaign to get traffic to a page. TrustedOut analyzes the destination page and build the following Corpus for this campaign:

  • Content must be French for France
  • Media must have covered “Society” AND talk about “Digital Life” over the past quarter to get stable classifications

Corpus looks like this:

A click on the “Report” button will give you this PDF:

Click on the button to get the report

Fine tuning your Corpus to get the desired Report

At all time you can tweak your Corpus to correct things you don’t like in the Report.

For example, page 29 shows:

… and you don’t want:

  • Toxic content
  • You can tolerate Politics but don’t want Far Right, nor Far Left
  • You’re ok with Religions and Humorous/Satirical

Then, change your Corpus definition to:

Next: Connect your Corpus to your DSP. (Spoiler alert: Blog post coming soon :))

Analytics Perimeters Watch

Controlling and sharing the Corpus you use for your analytics is critical.

After all, trusting decisions you are going to make impose to share the content you use to make your analytics and thus the decisions from those.

(reminder: the name TrustedOut comes from “If it’s not Trusted In, it cannot be Trusted Out”)

To pursue with our example above, the Report shows on page 9 the trends of your Corpus over time:

Now, say you don’t want to use, for any reason, media talking about Preschool and Primary Schools:

Simply change your Corpus definition with the addition line:

And now, Trends look like this:

Get management and clients involved by sharing Corpuses!

Questions? Let us know:




How Health is covered depending on Political Orientations. US vs France.

In the radars above, we analyzed Editorial Classifications in Media in the US and France, in between June 13th and June 20th using the following Corpus:

. Country is “France”, and then, “USA”
. Source Taxonomy is “Sciences>Medicine & Health” OR “Industries>Healthcare”, “Covered” AND over the “past week”
. Spotted as Political is “Left” OR “Far Left”, and then, “Right” OR “Far Right”, and then “Negative”

Top 6 Editorial Classifications in the USA:

  1. No Political Orientation has Medicine & Health significantly #1 and ahead of #2 and #3
  2. Both No Political Orientation and Right/Far Right have Medicine & Health as #1, which seems obvious looking at the Corpus definition, but Left/Far Left has it at the lowest percentage, #3, below Society and Lifestyle
  3. Interestingly, all have Politics in the same range.
  4. Right/Far Right has Economy & Enterprise higher than No Political Orientation and Left/Far Left have Economy & Enterprise, both at the same level.
  5. Both No Political Orientation and Left/Far Left have Entertainment & Leisure. Right/Far Right does not but has Law instead.

Top 6 Editorial Classifications in France:

  1. All 3 have Medicine & Health as #1 and in similar range.
  2. All 3 have Lifestyle and Economy & Enterprise in similar range.
  3. All 3 have Society and Politics but higher when a Political Orientation is spotted
  4. Only when No Political Orientation is spotted do we have Formal & Earth & Universe Sciences
  5. Only when Left/Far Left Orientation is spotted do we have Human Sciences
  6. Only when Right/Far Right Orientation is spotted do we have Entertainment & Leisure

Content Orientations can be helpful.

Many times, Content Orientations are banned but, in the light of charts above, depending of your communication goals, Political Orientations may be helpful.

Want to know more? Contact us!

AI-managed taxonomy to keep up with language evolutions.

Measuring against datasets.

We explained in the following post how our classification works:

How our AI-powered classification works.

For the taxonomy, words from articles are measured vs Classifications datasets (a.k.a. Bags of words)

To gauge how a media is perceived, we, this time, measure what is said vs Perceptions datasets

Matching and weighting are making the score of the document. This is how we know where an article belongs and its level of expertise/severity.

AI to keep datasets permanently relevant.

The perception we have on an event evolves over time. So should the classification of this article. To make it happen, we keep the datasets always up-to-date. As seen in last week post, the classification of an article evolves with time:

AI-powered classifications vs Keywords. Part 2/2: Evolution over time.


The evolution domino effect: Languages impact datasets, which impact taxonomy.

The way we talk about something evolves with time. In fact, the dialect of the tribe made of people concerned about something evolves over time. More specific, cooler, geekier, newer… whatever is the reason, we love changes, we love new ways to express ourselves.

Datasets updates. Permanently.

Datasets must be rebuilt and updated permanently to catch new words, new importance on words, up and down, and the disappearance of some.

Overlapping intelligence. On watch.

As datasets evolve they may make a classification overlap over another which will weaken the taxonomy.

We measure overlapping, permanently as well, and if one is detected the taxonomy evolves consequently.

Recommended (re)Read:

Trusted Content as a Utility

AI-powered classifications vs Keywords. Part 1/2: Editorial Orientations detection.[updated]

Questions? Shoot!

Almost 6 in 10 Canadians blame the United States on the effect of fake news in Canada

The survey — conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the Centre of International Governance Innovation — looked to gauge the opinions of 25,000 internet users across the world on internet security and trust. [ref article]

89% of Canadian internet users think social media is the main source of distrust in the internet.

Are you sharing this opinion? 

86% falling for fake news at least once.

And you?

“This year’s survey of global attitudes not only underscores the fragility of the internet, but also netizens’ growing discomfort with social media and the power these corporations wield over their daily lives,” said Fen Osler Hampson, a fellow at CIGI and director of its global security and politics program. 

Importance for Business Intelligence:
No trust, no Intelligence.

Distrust has a toll for individual, but also for businesses. Define Media Profiles You Trust, Get Content You Need.

Deliver Trustworthy and Smarter Social Intelligence.

Can you make strategic decisions on doubtful insights?

Questions? Contact us!


People have shifted their trust to the relationships within their control.

Only 1 in 5 believes the system is working, and 1 in 2 thinks the reverse.

In this article, Why The Most Trusted Brands Will Also Be The Most Successful, Which-50 Media writes: “According to the authors (2019 Global Edelman Trust Index), “Trust has changed profoundly in the past year — people have shifted their trust to the relationships within their control.”. Indeed, the study revealed an urgent desire for change. “All [customers] share an urgent desire for change. Only one in five feels that the system is working for them, with nearly half of the mass population believing that the system is failing them.”

Why? Growing distrust in Media and Gov.

Distrust is, both in Media and Gov, and both in Europe and the US.

Reminder: Customers (readers) will give the most value to brands that they trust to do the right thing by them.

1/ Proof: 50% more trust on media I use vs media in general.

While distrust is general, trust definition is personal.

2/ Point: Consumer/reader Trust is Brand value.

Consumer trust is a vital and a key differentiator for publishers

3/ Caution: Hazardous ad placements impact brand value.

Brand Safety Violations: Consumers question brand’s motives.

Bottom line: CMOs must analyze and advertise on sites they trust.

Deliver Trustworthy and Smarter Social Intelligence.

Can you make strategic decisions on doubtful insights?

Fix Brand Safety with AI-operated WhiteListing.

Can you afford to put your brand at risk?

Questions? Contact us!





Is the open web in danger?

In this post we’ll be sharing our takeaways from a recent AdAge article: OPINION: THE CLOSED NATURE OF THE OPEN WEB

Few have become the gatekeepers for the many, both in terms of information and advertising..”

We highly recommend reading the article but, let’s jump straight to the opinion exposed for today: “Right now, the few have become the gatekeepers for the many, both in terms of information and advertising. From the information standpoint, alarms have been sounded, and players in Washington have begun discussing possible breakups of big tech in earnest. So where are the alarms on the advertising side?”

For the information part, we agree.

As we wrote in a previous post:

Saving journalism. [updated 2/19/19]

Trust, Media and Democracy

For the advertising part: Do not put all your Advertising eggs in the same Social Networks baskets.

We were sensitive to 3 arguments:

“…rewarding harmful content while decreasing the funding for quality journalism.”

“The fueling of unsafe environments
When advertising on the major tech platforms, advertisers are valuing all content the same, whether it’s high-quality journalism or user-generated rants. In doing so, they fuel the unsafe moments they are trying to avoid. The irony is that many advertisers are only willing to pause their YouTube spends, but they’ll fully eliminate advertising around quality news content—rewarding harmful content while decreasing the funding for quality journalism.”

Is a Social Network context, the most appropriate for your brand message?

“Proper context
If you’re only advertising on Facebook (or Google, Amazon, you name it), then you’re only reaching an audience when they’re in their Facebook (or Google, Amazon, etc.) mindset. And that’s perhaps not the mindset most conducive to your messaging and goals. On the open web, advertisers can target their ads not only by audience, but also around high-value, relevant content that puts a halo around their brands. Quite simply, contextual advertising works. When consumers see messaging that is relevant to their interests, in the moment that they’re indulging those interests, that messaging is far more likely to resonate.

Valuing social engagement over brand engagement.

“Negative brand value
The very design of these platforms is intended to strip away brand. People don’t say, “I saw a GM ad.” They say, “I saw a Facebook ad.” These platforms’ greatest trick has been to get CMOs to value social engagement over brand engagement. This is the exact opposite of what advertising is supposed to accomplish.

Mandatory Source Profile:
According to TrustedOut AI-Operated Taxonomy, AdAge is:

Specialized in:
General › Economy And Enterprise › Marketing
Industries › Information And Communication › Online Media
Industries › Manufacturing And Retail › Consumer Goods
People › Entertainment And Leisure › TV And Video And WebTV
People › Lifestyle › Food And Beverage

What do you think? Let us know!


Developed nations distrust Social Networks, Developing ones don’t.

This post is inspired from this The Guardian (UK Edition) article

More than four in five Britons distrust platforms such as Facebook and Twitter…

“…with other developed nations such as France, Germany and the US not far behind. The attitudes contrast sharply with those in middle-income countries such as Brazil, India and Mexico, where trust is far higher…. just 12% trusted information from social media, compared with 83% who had little or no trust in platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

Less than 30% trust in Social Networks in developed nations, more than 50% in developing ones.

“In all, 23% of Americans said they trusted information gained from social media, as did 20% of Germans, and 28% of Canadians. In developing nations, however, the trust was much higher: a majority of Indians (52%), Saudis (52%) and Thais (52%) trusted information from social media – as did 51% of Poles.”

UK and US do trust Local news orgs.

“Just two sources of information were trusted by a majority of Britons: national TV news channels (61%) and local news organisations (54%). Only the US was more mistrusting of information sources in general. According to the polling, local news organisations are the sole news sources that are trusted by a majority of Americans (58%).”

Cambridge Analytica, Christchurch, US Elections… all had a toll on Social Networks.

“The Cambridge Analytica scandal highlighted big tech’s ability and willingness to harvest data and subvert democracy, while the Christchurch shooting is the latest example of terrorism encouraged by online radicalisation.

YouTube has continually been found showing inappropriate content to children, and all the social networks have been implicated in nation-state information warfare, beginning with Russian trolls uncovered on Twitter after the US election.”

The desire for regularization.

“Episodes such as these explain why Britain is leading calls for increased levels of regulation of social media and technology companies. More than 60% of Britons think those businesses should be regulated more than they are now, compared with just 6% who think there is too much regulation and 15% who think there is the right amount.”

Social Media vs Traditional Media

From a previous post:

Get information from Traditional Media, have conversation on Social Media. Not the other way around.

Must gauge who’s talking.

We are basing this post on UK Edition. Prior to write anything, we, of course, use TrustedOut to understand who they are.

They are no spotted as any toxic content, such as fake news, fake sciences, conspiracist… But are they knowledgeable about publishing? Let’s ask for TrustedOut Taxonomy: UK Edition classified by TrustedOut AI-Operated Taxonomy.

We decided they were legit and wrote this post.

Questions? Shoot!



In Europe, for the 1st time, written press is more trusted than distrusted.

Credits: EBU

This post is our takeaways from an article and an EBU (European Broadcasting Union) report.

In Europe, Social media and the Internet are much more distrusted than trusted. It’s the reverse for Radio and TV.

Radio is the most trusted medium by EU citizens – trusted by 59% of the population with half of all EU citizens trusting TV.

Only 32% trust the Internet. 19% trust social networks.

On the other hand, the internet is trusted by only 32% of citizens and social media by 19% (down from 36% and 21% respectively in 2014).

Correlation between national news trustworthiness and democracy.

A positive correlation between the perceived trustworthiness of national news and citizens’ satisfaction with democracy means radio and television are indispensable assets for European society.

Related posts:

The decline of local newspapers impact on democracy.

Trust, Media and Democracy

Must gauge who’s talking.

We are basing this post on Prior to write anything, we, of course, use TrustedOut to understand who they are.

They are no spotted as any toxic content, such as fake news, fake sciences, conspiracist… But are they knowledgeable about publishing? Let’s ask for TrustedOut Taxonomy:

Advanced-television classified by TrustedOut AI-Operated Taxonomy.

We decided they were legit and wrote this post.

Questions? Shoot!


Distrust is, both in Media and Gov, and both in Europe and the US.

Following our previous post “Populists/anti-elitists and Right wings share the same views on News Media in France” taken from (Pew Research) comes this chart showing

The level of distrust in news media follow the level of distrust in Governmental institutions.

To be noticed, UK, France and Italy trust their military and UK still has faith in its banking institution which is an interesting point in the midst of the Brexit. Don’t trust the media, trust banks?

A similar situation to the US.

A few weeks back, we posted this:

Distrust in Media driven by distrust in government.

As trust is personal, it must be personally defined.

This is the key message of TrustedOut:

While distrust is general, trust definition is personal.

Questions? Shoot!



Cyber-crime and Social Media: 62% afraid. 94% distrust. 66% ok to share.

[this post is based on an eWeek article on the Norton LifeLock Cyber Safety Insights Report – March 26th 2019]

62% believe risk for Cyber-crime is higher than the flu.

62 percent of Americans believe that experiencing cyber-crime is equally or more likely, than getting the flu. The study however also found that American want to be secure, however they are also willing in some circumstances to trade security for convenience.

94% have little or no trust in their social media provider’s ability to protect and manage personal information.

After a year of scandals and headlines, no surprised here. And we are not only talking about Facebook, but all social networks.
Consequence: 28% have deleted a social media account in the past 12 month as a result of a privacy concern.

84% want more about their privacy, but 66% are willing to share their personal data.

“According to the report, 84 percent of consumers want to do more improve their privacy, which was a surprising finding.” but “…many are willing to sell or give away their personal data including: internet search history, location and personal ID information such as a driver’s licenses. According to the report, 66 percent of consumers are willing to accept certain risks for data sharing to make life more convenient.”

But 72% do not want to pay for protection…

“72 percent of consumers saying they are not willing to pay social media providers to ensure their personal information is protected when using them, compared to 58 percent for retailers”

… as long as, for 77% they understand how their data are used and they can report abuse.

“77 percent of consumers said that it’s absolutely essential or very important to have the right to understand how their personal data is used. Additionally, 78 percent reported  that it’s absolutely essential or very important to have a way to report personal data misuse.”

Questions? Shoot!