The next time you’re hopping turnstiles or collecting coins in your favorite mass transit-themed mobile game, you might catch yourself reading Vanity Fair. Or Complex. Or the Los Angeles Times.

No, it isn’t simulating the pre-Covid commute: Some publishers are buying traffic from Subway Surfers, one of the most popular mobile-app games in the world.

Marketing Brew observed the mobile game directing traffic to major publishers’ websites using a practice called “rewarded inventory,” where players can earn in-game rewards for sitting through advertisements.

• But in this case, instead of sitting through a commercial, users are expected to scroll through articles, like one from Self titled “20-Minute Bodyweight Strength Workout for Runners.”
• Industry folks told Marketing Brew this type of incentivized traffic is largely a gray area in the world of publisher-advertiser agreements.

It’s one thing if advertisers are buying inventory in mobile games. It’s another if publishers are using that inventory to boost their own traffic, potentially juicing ad impressions along the way. Often, advertisers want to buy from publishers because they’re relevant to their audiences, but with rewarded traffic, “there’s absolutely zero intent” to visit these sites, said Chris Kane, founder and president of Jounce Media. “It is really clear that marketers do not consider this to be a good use of their funds.”

• Essentially, brands that might have been trying to reach a certain audience—like women interested in skin-care routines who read New Beauty—could be showing up in front of Subway Surfers players.

“These are impressions generated by a real human…but is she remotely interested in the publishers’ content? Who can say? Because she didn’t intend to go there,” said Rocky Moss, an ad-fraud researcher and co-founder and CEO of brand suitability firm DeepSee, who’s investigated rewarded traffic. “So this really screws that up, because the assumption under contextual is that people visit a site because they have some engagement with the content.”

Read our full story to find out how we spotted this traffic—and if advertisers care.—RB, JB

Watching Disney+ or Hulu without ads is about to get more expensive.

Disney’s further push into ad-supported streaming will come with price hikes across the company’s streaming portfolio, the company announced Wednesday.

Mark your calendars: Disney+’s ad-supported tier will arrive on Dec. 8 for $7.99 a month, the same price many existing subscribers currently pay for ad-free viewing. Continuing to view ad-free on Disney+ Premium will cost $3 more per month.

Other customers will also need to pay up:

• Hulu’s current $6.99-a-month ad-supported tier will cost $1 more beginning Dec. 8.
• Ad-free Hulu, currently $12.99 a month, will increase by $2 a month.
• ESPN+, which is only available with ads, will also increase from $6.99 a month to $9.99 a month beginning later this month, the company previously announced.

What won’t change is the cost of the mostly ad-free Disney bundle, which includes ad-free Disney+, ad-free Hulu, and ad-supported ESPN+ for $19.99 a month. (Other bundle options include ad-supported Hulu and Disney+ for $9.99 a month, or ad-supported Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ for $12.99 a month.)

The company does not expect price increases to meaningfully affect churn in the long run, CEO Bob Chapek said.

Ad up: Disney executives hope many Disney+ subscribers opt to watch ads at the same price point they are used to, which would be good news for all the advertisers clamoring to access viewers via the service. “Based on our Hulu experience, even current subscribers who have ad-free may choose to stay at the same price point with ads,” Disney CFO Christine McCarthy told investors during its Q3 earnings call, adding that about two-thirds of Hulu subscribers opt to watch the service with ads.

Pay up: The price increases also come as the company shells out billions of dollars to make shows like Andor and movies like Prey. Disney’s DTC business lost $1.1 billion in the quarter, mostly due to higher programming and production costs, it disclosed.

Scale up: Disney ended the quarter with 221 million total subscriptions, with Disney+ at 152.1 million total subs, Hulu at 46.2 million subs, and ESPN+ at 22.8 million subs. But growth is slowing, and the company lowered its 2024 subscriber forecast by 15 million.—KS

Lego Group, the company behind everyone’s favorite birthday present-turned-heel poker, turned 90 years old yesterday. So how did the wooden toy company, founded in a carpenter’s workshop 90 years ago, become a multimedia powerhouse?

In 1949, the company transitioned from wooden toys to the plastic bricks we know today.

• But while the bricks have stayed the same, the universe has multiplied.
• These days, the debate over the best on-screen Batman—what might be a toss-up between Christian Bale or Robert Pattinson—can’t exclude Will Arnett, the voice of the caped Minifigure in The Lego Batman Movie from 2017.
• And no Star Wars video game has come close to the campy fun of the Lego Star Wars franchise.

It wasn’t always this way, though: Lego was largely against commercial tie-ups for the first 60 years of its operation, especially those that weren’t explicitly family-friendly. Keep reading here.—JA

There are a lot of bad marketing tips out there. These aren’t those.

Risky business: Why trust is crucial to your social strategy.

Checkmark: Is your brand not yet verified on TikTok? Better get on that.

Social impact: When a strong mission wasn’t enough, here’s how one founder turned her brand around without losing sight of her goal.

Cookie-less consumers: Users want to trust their fave brands with their data. During Permutive’s latest event, Kelsey Chickering, principal analyst at Forrester, discussed the impact of this trend and how to regain consumer trust with mindful media strategies. Watch here.*

^{*This is sponsored advertising content.}

Consumer behaviors are rapidly changing. Join us for a can’t-miss discussion about how every marketer should be navigating major shifts in the digital landscape.

Watch the on-demand webinar now.

As part of their ESG efforts, many brands have taken to labeling their products and operations as “carbon-neutral.” But according to research from Morning Consult, most Americans don’t know what that means.

The definition: When companies use the term, Morning Consult says it indicates that “whatever emissions were released in the creation of the product, the brand compensated for their harmful effects by purchasing ‘offsets’ or donations to projects that reduce emissions, such as by planting trees or sequestering carbon.”

Who knows: In response to a survey conducted July 26 among 2,210 US adults, 59% either incorrectly identified the term from a list of three options, or said flat out they didn’t know what it meant.

• 41% picked the correct definition.
• Even among self-identified environmentalists, less than half (45%) were able to choose the right option.

Who cares: Just about one-quarter (23%) of respondents said sustainability labels are a major factor in their decision to purchase one food or beverage brand over another.

• On the other hand, 77% of Americans said “reasonable prices are a major factor” in their purchasing decisions.
• Roughly half (52%) said they’ve never even seen a carbon-neutral label, and 14% said they’ve never tried to buy carbon-neutral products.

Catch up on a few Marketing Brew stories you might have missed.

• Run ads or place products in-show? Both are best, research finds
• Agencies are rolling out reimbursement policies post-Dobbs—but how do they work?
• Mood Board: Fiverr ad encourages business leaders to consider freelancers part of company culture