2020 Advertiser Boycotts: Is this a reset moment for the media?

The impending July advertising boycotts of various platforms – including Facebook – are an interesting moment around the concept of large organisations exercising their advertising and marketing spend in order to generate an outcome.

This is not a new phenomenon. Advertisers have used the lever of ad spend with media companies since advertising was invented. In the majority of cases this has been to benefit their own organisations as opposed to outside interests.

Sure, there have always been media outlets on the fringe that no advertiser wanted to touch. But the reality is that those fringe outlets were not ‘need to have’ placements and a campaign could perfectly achieve its objectives without having to be placed into an environment that could be damage the brand by association.

For example – no campaign lives and dies on being on Breitbart. Breitbart could disappear tomorrow, and I could safely say no brand would sell less products or be impacted in any way.

As somebody who advises marketers and organisations on where and how to invest their media funds, the current situation feels different to similar events that have gone before it.

Prior advertiser related pullbacks have revolved around something happening that has been perceived to put a brand in danger, and investment being pulled as a mix of punitive action as well as self-preservation.

When there were issues across YouTube in 2017 I was told by a pretty senior CMO that their CEO had said if their brands activity was ever found adjacent to any questionable content, I would be out of a job, the CMO would be out of a job, and the agency would be immediately fired.

Advertiser boycotts can be powerful, but they do raise some pretty chunky questions and concepts.

• Are brands joining boycotts because they need to be seen to be doing something when others are doing something?
• Are brands considering the reasons behind boycotts and extending these out to all media companies – not just the ones they’re being told to investigate?
• What has the brands moral position been on these issues prior to a concerted campaign being waged? And if it’s a shift, are they prepared to be ‘all in’ and look at how they tackle these areas across all aspects of their business and marketing?
• Would the organisation hold the line regardless of potential business implications. Does scale trump context?

In my role I’ve always tried to not let my own personal views cloud my advice. As part of my 2020 media trends I noted that I felt 2020 would be a divided year and media coverage would focus heavily on partisan politics both here and abroad – and I asked the question around what marketers and organisations felt about being surrounded by content that was potentially inflammatory at best, downright racist at worst.

The view I held, and still do, is media as an industry has probably crossed the line from ‘balanced’ to ‘antagonistic’ and much of our advertising options are based around companies that happily stoke the fire of division in order to drive ratings or clicks.

Media companies that will employ columnists that use offensive racial terms.

TV companies that employ hosts that falsely claim COVID outbreaks were caused by a certain segment of the community.

Radio hosts that advocate violence against women.

Sporting commentators with a history of domestic violence against women, appearing on prime-time television.

Websites/podcasts comparing Colin Kaepernick to Osama Bin Laden.

Media moguls that compare indigenous athletes to King Kong.

Plus the climate denialists, racists, abusive talking heads we see everyday on our screens.

And remember when a large global media company, founded in Australia, hacked into the voicemails of a dead woman in order to use the material for stories to sell newspapers?

All pretty much unchecked. And that includes by me too.

Every day across basically every channel there are a level questionable views and opinion being pushed into the media world knowingly. Designed purely to anger and agitate, or humiliate and damage.

My point is – if we’re going to look closely at specific platforms and evaluate whether they cross the line in terms of fuelling division, we may as well go all in and look across the board.

My advice to advertisers right now, on June 30, would be this: Right now is a reasonable time to look at where you place your advertising spend.

But think deeper and use it as a way of developing a code that your organisation can unite around in relation to where it’s suitable for your brand to appear. Consider the content, people, topics and environments that fit your brand – draft up a code and use this to guide your placements.

If you don’t want to appear next to partisan content – specify this.

If you’re concerned about the level of user comments online – don’t appear near comments.

If you’re worried about specific areas of debate – look to avoid these.

And if you’re not concerned – you don’t have to do anything

And on the other hand, if there’s specific topics, environments, talent or initiatives that you do want to support – look to seek these out and actively support these. Advertisers and marketers have incredible freedom.

A code would provide all stakeholders clarity around what you require as an advertiser - your agencies, your media partners, your staff. It provides clear guidance that allows all of these parties to make decisions. The media partner has a clear choice - abide by the code, or they don't receive investment. The media agency has a clear idea of what environments are suitable - which means it's not a month to month knee jerk around what platform or commentator they need to avoid for a few weeks.

But do it 24/7, every day. Be prepared to have to shift or sacrifice. Be prepared for a few uncomfortable conversations. And be consistent. Don’t do it because others are. Do it because it fits with your brand and what your company seeks to do.