Bookkake

Whatever your opinion of the big FB, I think we can agree on two things: there are a lot of people there, and they deserve dirty books. I’ve heard that Facebook ads can be highly effective if targeted correctly, so I decided to fly a small kite and see what happened. (That’s ‘fly a kite’ as in run a small, limited trial of the system, not try to pass off a bent cheque in a Turkish spieler on the Old Kent Road. Alright, ice cream?)

On the left is the ad, and the copy, I attempted. I’ll be honest and say that I did anticipate some difficulties, and difficulty is what I got. The ad was marked “disapproved” (in bold) and I was advised that it “should not be run again on the site under any circumstances”. I was also told “The content advertised by this ad is restricted. Per sections 8 and 9 of Facebook’s Advertising Guidelines, this content is prohibited from being advertised on Facebook. Ads for this product, service or site will not be accepted in any form, and may result in your account being disabled.”

Facebook’s Advertising Guidelines include the following relevant bits (if you think I might have transgressed others, do say):

Language and image content

• Provocative images will not be accepted.
• Ads may not contain, facilitate or promote adult content, including nudity, sexual terms and/or images of people in positions or activities that are excessively suggestive or sexual.
• Ads may not contain, facilitate or promote offensive, profane, vulgar, obscene, or inappropriate language.
• Ads may not contain, facilitate or promote defamatory, libelous, slanderous and/or unlawful content.

Prohibited Content

We do not accept advertising referencing, facilitating or promoting the following:

• …
• Adult toys, videos, or other adult products
• …

It’s hard to know what to do, really. Is the image provocative? It’s skin, but it’s pertinent. It’s the cover of Rakehell, and I suppose I could have used the eye from Liber Amoris or Venus instead, although it’s definitely the most attractive at that size. (Well, I’m not going to get away with Fanny, am I?)

I don’t know whether FB considers the name ‘Bookkake’ itself “offensive, profane, vulgar, obscene, or inappropriate language”. The BBC and a number of other august institutions do not, but then, they may be a little more savvy. Again, hard to say.

Where we fall down rather is in the requirement that “Ads may not contain, facilitate or promote adult content, including nudity, sexual terms and/or images of people in positions or activities that are excessively suggestive or sexual.” It’s not hard to see Bookkake falling foul of this, but on a closer reading it all seems very image-based. Are they really trying to prevent the promotion of literature that touches on adult themes to consenting adults, or are they just trying to stop hard-core porn, primarily images? Is it just because I used the word ‘dirty’ in the ad?

So I’m going to try a couple of variations, and request some more details. Bookkake walks a fine line - and indeed, deliberately exploits that line - between tawdriness and dirty, quality literature. We know which side we stand on, but it can sometimes take a little steering for others to see it the same way. If any of our readers have any experience in this area, I’d love to hear from you.