The Journal of Brand Strategy: Ethics & Brand Safety

Republished with the permission of copyright holder, Henry Stewart Publications 2045-855x Journal of Brand Strategy Vol. 10, no. 2, 109–120 Autumn/Fall 2021

Ethical online advertising: Choosing the right tools for online brand safety

Abstract

No brand owner wants their ad turning up next to unsavoury online content.

With the automated daily delivery of trillions of ad impressions across the open web, brands and agencies rely on systems and tools to ensure their ad is being placed in the most appropriate contexts. Unfortunately, in the last 25 years of programmatic advertising, the tools that we rely on to protect brands have not always kept up with our desire and ability to safely spread our brand message far and wide. Tools such as keyword blocklists were once the de facto method for managing correct placement. However, media coverage on the blocking of COVID-19, progressive content and even small-scale scandals have shown how inefficient these antiquated tools can be. Blocklists use single terms to define suitability, which in turn generates broad-brushstroke stereotyping, impacting scale and accuracy of ad placement. As well as missed opportunities and poor ad placement decisioning, this type of binary approach to safety disproportionately impacts progressive content. By featuring them and the tools that act on them, brands can limit consumer exposure to valued content by defunding the publishers giving voice to these potentially progressive topics. Thankfully, there are now better ways to manage brand safety online.

Contextual brand suitability tools disregard single terms and instead ascertain relevance on the basis of an understanding and appreciation of more nuanced contexts. There are several steps any brand or agency can take to begin to evolve their brand safety strategy. These steps are an important part of the journey to increase online safety while also ensuring we are not our own blocker to safer, smarter and progressive approaches to online ad placement decisions.

INTRODUCTION

For those of us working in adtech, one of the most recent, unforgettable headlines must be: ‘Big Brands Fund Terror’ (1). This 2017 scathing indictment from The Times newspaper saw every ‘big brand’ marketing director hold their breath as they speed dialled their media team for clarity on their own campaign activities. If this headline passed you by, the story goes like this: ads from Mercedes and Marie-Curie, among others, were inadvertently served alongside some Islamic State and Combat-18 content on YouTube. At the time, 1,000 views typically generated US$7.60 of revenue for the content owner. This revenue was cited as potentially filling the pockets of the extremist groups that posted it. The result was that an array of High Street brands unwittingly found themselves caught up in this rather unsavoury scandal.

WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME

With approximately 634 billion (2,3) paid-for online ads served everyday globally - including a 27 per cent ad blocker penetration (4), it is unsurprising that some ads might end up in places that they would rather not be seen. After all, retargeting ads typically go where people go…and without some degree of intelligent protection in place, brands would have no real certainty or control around where their ads are served.

The unearthing of this kind of scandal was, on the surface, a positive one. In fact, we saw several industry leaders throw their weight behind the cause. The most vocal of them was Marc Pritchard, Chief Brand Officer at P&G (5). Mr. Prichard issued a directive to the adtech industry that reverberated around the halls of the media landscape: clean up your brand safety issue or we will pull our ads. At the 2017 DMEXCO conference, Pritchard made his position clear: ‘We simply will not accept or take the chance that our ads are associated with violence, bigotry, or hate. In fact, we took the unprecedented step to cut more than $100m in wasteful digital spending starting last March because we couldn’t be assured that our ads would not appear next to bad content like a terrorist video.’

Of course, pulling millions in media budget has the tendency to act as an exceptional catalyst for change. But it is not a solution. The solution that many chose to protect themselves from similar future brand safety breaches was the humble blocklist.

ENTER: THE BLOCKLIST

Blocklists have, of course, been in the industry far longer than just the last few years. In 2018 they transitioned from a backroom list of unsafe terms to a rather controversial campaign tool (6). Blocklists perform the exact function you might expect. In the context of online advertising, they act as a layer of protection or a filter that determines a suitable (safe) or unsuitable (including unsafe) ad environment.

If the word is on the blocklist (eg death) and is seen on the page before the ad load, then that ad will either be blocked before or after the bid, depending on how the blocklist is deployed. The simplicity and ease of blocklists are exactly why we see more than 90 per cent (7) of big brands continue to use them today. The idea that the terms murder or fraud should never be relevant for your brand, and therefore deserves a place on your blocklist, feels like a solid concept in theory.

DON’T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER…

Over the last few years, we have seen that this keyword-based strategy is far from perfect (8).

In March 2020, the most blocked term in the online advertising industry was COVID-19 (9). And initially it made sense — why would anyone want an ad to appear alongside a deadly disease? But soon it became clear that COVID-19 had permeated every category and corner of our lives, and thus the web (Table 1).

Consider how many articles you read in 2020 that referenced ‘the pandemic’ in the first paragraph. Looking back, it would have been nearly impossible to imagine something like COVID-19 being tied to topics as obscure as candle making and butter churning! (Figure 1)(10)!

The point is that words turn up in all manner of contexts. Knowing what we know now about COVID-19, it is natural to assume some of these contexts were and are brand unsafe. But how much? In late 2020, we found more than 68 per cent (11) of these COVID-19 contexts were entirely safe and devoid of any classic unsafe content and categories as defined by the Internet Advertising Bureau (12).

Figure 1 COVID-19 being tied to topics as obscure as candle making and butter churning

In 2020, blocking COVID-19 was certainly a short-sighted strategy — especially when an incredible 1 in 10 impressions (13) across the web featured COVID as a topic in the body of the text. Anyone with this on their blocklist was potentially losing a significant volume of relevant impressions. Of course, COVID-19 is just one extreme example. But that is the point — it is just one example. The average blocklists we see are typically over 1,000 terms, all of which also turn up in every context imaginable (Table 1).

Table 1 Block rates across content categories if blocking the term COVID-19 (or synonyms)

A MATTER OF TIME

We all notice this fact at some point: the meaning of words changes over time. One of the more extreme examples is awful — originally a synonym of awesome (14). Somewhere in the 19th century, this positive term was flipped on its head and became what we know it as today. In far smaller increments of time, this also is very evident. Influential but scandal-struck public figures, events and locations have become potential advertising faux pas in recent years.

Take the term ‘London Bridge’. The London Bridge area in the heart of London is a throng of culture and tourism, with Borough Market, Shakespeare’s Globe theatre and the iconic Golden Hinde all within a few hundred yards of each other. But in November 2019, a horrific terror incident unfolded there. The event saw London Bridge become the most added term to block that month. This term remains on many blocklists today. Of course, this is not an isolated example. Ariana Grande, Manchester, Marathon, TikTok or even parent are all terms that were appropriately blocked, at some point, by someone, for some reason.

Unfortunately, it is common to see these Excel-based blocklists simply added to, instead of fully revised to weed out outdated terms. Without constant management of these lists, we have seen them grow beyond 5,000 terms with such words as pondersome as can and chicken (for an unnamed food retailer).

Times change, trends change, and what was a threat yesterday could be an opportunity today. Some brands have now brought these lists in-house to mitigate this issue, but many are maintained at agency or brand level by often a single team member. Even for the most detail oriented, it is unreasonable to expect any single person to effectively evaluate the dynamic suitability of 1,000-plus terms, per account, on an ongoing basis, considering the changing nature of the news and consumer landscape.

THE COST OF FREE SPEECH

Pigeonholing terms as good (safe) or bad (unsafe) is a dangerous path to tread. We need only look at the power of short-form media channels to see how something as inane as a misinterpreted tweet can escalate into a full-blown scandal. Unlike tweets, blocklists operate from the shadows — everyone knows they exist but rarely get looked at under the hood.

In mid-2020 there was a push to rebrand the blacklist to blocklist (15). This was a positive step to move away from the propagation of colour-centric stereotyping. It was, however, not the wrapping that required the attention. The biggest culprits of broad-brushstroke assumptions and stereotyping was caused by the content within them.

Despite the conspicuous role of the blocklist, the impacts of their use can be significant.

Just take one of the biggest stories of 2019 — The FIFA Women’s World Cup.16 This positive, feel good sporting success story was a focus for many sponsors, brands and categories. Unfortunately for the sponsors, athletes and publishers, vast swathes of impressions and pages were flagged as unsafe. Why? Because the well-covered US and Netherlands’ female soccer teams happened to include five lesbian and bisexual athletes. The term lesbian is still one of the top words we see on the average blocklist today (Figure 2). Multimillion-dollar deals were being made to align with these exceptional, high-performing athletes.

Unfortunately, one of the very tools responsible for ad placement also was stopping ad placement right on the goal line. Other than the obvious impact on the advertiser’s missed impressions, there are additional concerning societal impacts.

Figure 2 The term lesbian is still one of the top words we see on the average blocklist today

MINORITY OR MORE SOCIO-DIVERSE GROUPS ARE MOST ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY OVER-BLOCKING

When it comes to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Asexual (LGBTQA) content, a study by World Advertising Research Center (17) found there are 11 million sites within this category and that blocklists are responsible for culling 73 per cent of safe content across these topics. Vice Media (18) also showed us that Black Lives Matter (BLM)-based content saw 57 per cent lower monetisation than other news content. This is effectively demonetising entire swathes of this diverse content and the publishers actively supporting it.

With most publishers using an ad-funded model and many having to single-mindedly focus on optimising towards the content on their site delivering ad dollars, all content needs to earn its keep.

By blocking certain types of content, we limit potential coverage and exposure of independent, fair and free journalism. We can also put some numbers to this. The University of Baltimore’s Merrick School of Business (19) surveyed the UK, US, Japanese and Australian markets and found that publishers missed out on US$3.2bn or ￡2.46bn in digital ad revenue owing to over-blocking. In the UK, this means ￡1 in every ￡5 is being lost by this type of overzealous blocking.

FORGET SAFE, GET SUITABLE

As we enter this new decade, we continue to witness a positive tide towards a greater appreciation of the value of diversity. Blocking terms like ‘gay’ or ‘protest’ is ethically, politically and culturally insensitive.

It is also just bad business. These arguments might sound as if we are recommending that all brands actively support and target such content. In fact, you may be quietly saying to yourself:

‘But I do not want content that features race, religion, or sexuality-based content. I can block this and still get the impressions I need elsewhere.’

This is a misinterpretation and overreach of the perceived role of negative targeting (ie blocklists). It is also why we often see 5,000-word blocklists.

BLOCKLISTS ARE NOT AN EXTENSION OF YOUR POSITIVE TARGETING STRATEGY

To treat them as such is to devalue the role and efficiency of your positive targeting. After all, content should not be approached in a binary fashion, that is, safe versus unsafe. When we incorporate those words that we do not want to target, we push the role of brand safety to the point where we often end up blocking the content we are actively looking to capture.

A good example of a do not target term we see on blocklists is emissions. This is sometimes featured unnecessarily on the blocklist of motors brands (following some high-profile scandals), but it is also an important piece of information typically covered in an automotive article. To decide that the entire piece of content is negative because of the mere occurrence of this term is a presumption not to be actioned on a blocklist.

BRAND SUITABILITY

Brand suitability is the term often used to describe brand safety 2.0. It came to life through the developments we have seen in the technology delivering both negative and positive targeting. Advances in Contextual Intelligence tech have provided us with the ability to discern and determine the nuances of content found in the vast grey space between the absolute extremes of unsafe and irrelevant (eg the topic of cannibalism) and safe and relevant (eg the topic of best exercises from home for a fitness brand).

Brand suitability also appreciates the specific differences between not only categories but also brands. Consider the concept that one advertiser’s idea of a brand safety breach is another’s golden opportunity to grasp new customers. Take the example of a piece of content that highlights a technology brand’s supply-chain issues: this presents an optimal opportunity for another competing tech brand to swoop in and present their wares with a potential engaged or in-market shopper within this category.

Brand suitability is the realisation that we do not need to look at safety in such binary terms such as safe or unsafe through keywords occurrences alone.

Blocklists have been the default tool to power this kind of binary decision-making. Today there are better options, and the journey to ensure you mitigate some of the issues we covered can be summarised in these two points:

• Define what brand suitability looks like for your brand
• Understand and embrace the smarter, more efficient methodologies to deploy your brand safety strategy.

DEFINING YOUR OWN BRAND SUITABILITY

The journey to a more accurate and ethical brand safety strategy requires a brand to look at what brand suitable means to them. This in turn enables them to actively identify and target the environments relevant to their campaign. To achieve this, two factors need to be defined:

• Their negative or ‘risk profile’: that is, understanding what content is off limits.
• Their positive profile: that is, understanding what content is favourable and beneficial to the brand.

DEFINING THE RISK PROFILE

The first step in defining the risk profile is acknowledging that every brand has its own appetite for risk. What is off limits for one brand may be fair game for another.

The year 2020 felt like an entire year of off limits when it came to advertising. Yet look around and we find numerous examples of brands embracing this idea of brand suitability in a pandemic. Burger King (20) was one such brand. It captured one of the biggest lockdown trends in gaming and delivered a little piece of Burger King to the virtual gaming world via Grand Theft Auto. BK’s virtual homecoming was an online Burger King restaurant that brought real-world prizes to its essential gaming audience (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Burger King restaurants brought real-world prizes to its essential gaming audience

KFC (21) was another brand applauded for one of its campaigns. They took a different approach, however, by focusing on sharing, family and appreciation of the thousands of delivery drivers serving the country through lockdown.

Two takeaway brands took two especially different approaches to one common subject. This nuanced, custom approach is the same way we should think about our blocklists. Applicability of COVID-19 cannot be described through one term; instead, it is an understanding and a fit in relation to a specific element of COVID-19 offering opportunity (or risk) for your brand persona.

CONTEXTUAL APPROACH

This type of custom approach is why context-based understanding (also known as contextual intelligence) is becoming the gold standard. Custom context allows advertisers to set their own standards for each brand and then evaluate their standards against the actual content on each page to determine whether it is appropriate.

Traditionally, a brand would maintain a blocklist of thousands of words covering everything from adult themes to terrorism. These lists would often feature up to 20 variants of a single unsafe term such as kill/killing/kills/killer and so on.

This is no longer required, as most quality contextual providers (along with Demand Side Platforms [DSPs]) already block or cater for these classic risks as standard. Leaving blocklists behind and employing standard contextual brand safety solutions also leaves more time and opportunity to help understand what a brand-specific, custom risk looks like.

In the past, these custom risks would be accounted for similarly as a standard risk, that is a word on a blocklist. Instead, brands must focus on a brand safety strategy to the same degree as they might on an audience targeting brief.

In practice this is as simple as providing links to past or real-time, real-world examples of risky online content specific to your brand or category, while also featuring some of the offending terms — a product being recalled, for example. Sample online stories also have the added benefit of being modelled from. In other words, contextual tools (as well as humans) can scan this content to create a segment that would specifically block it, along with similar content, rather than relying on terms that, in isolation, have many potential contexts. This simple approach of employing standard contextual safety segments, while also providing better contextual and examples around custom risks, offers numerous benefits including:

1. No need to maintain lists of thousands of standard unsafe words

2. No need to constantly evaluate blocklist terms on their applicability month to month

3. Reducing over-blocking of relevant content due to an absolute block, or keyword-based approach

4. Increasing blocking of true contextual risks not captured by terms alone

5. Removing the need to use inappropriate, broad-brush terms across sensitive topics

6. Ensuring journalism and free speech are supported through appropriate ad spend

BUT REMEMBER…

The mistake often made when building complementary brand safety and positive targeting strategies is to overstretch their roles. As previously explained, your brand safety strategy should not be an extension of your positive targeting strategy.

In practice, this means that if you must use a blocklist, always avoid including those middle-ground terms that you’re not targeting (as opposed to topics you are actively avoiding). If you choose the smarter, true custom-contextual approach, then avoid nesting positive segments within a custom segment (like health or kids-based content). Rather like an overzealous surgeon operating on a patient, if you cut away too much ambiguous ‘content’ to absolutely avoid risk, you may do more damage than good. For your campaign, this means over-blocking potentially highly relevant content and thus killing campaign scale. Trust in your positive targeting segments.

PRECISION, PRECISION, PRECISION

In the fast-paced world of programmatic advertising, getting positive targeting right comes down to precision. And as new content is published every second, a brand’s ideal list of environments will be constantly changing. This is where understanding true context counts.

A well-structured positive contextual segment and profile will identify relevant content through a page-level understanding of true context. Some contextual technology determines brand-‘relevant’ environments by matching key terms in the URL string that also feature in a segment. This poses an issue.

In the same way blocking a term within a blocklist makes assumptions on a piece of content; by looking at URL strings alone, the technology is not looking at the full page and is instead making assumptions on the theme of the page. This is a flawed approach and should be avoided.

With a brand suitability profile established, brands can confidently plan and execute their programmatic campaigns, knowing their ads are only appearing in ideal environments. And this leads to benefits for advertisers, platforms and consumers.

An effective brand suitability profile helps discover and serve against high-value inventory while avoiding both standard and custom risks without unnecessarily cutting away volumes of valued and relevant content. This approach increases campaign effectiveness for advertisers by ensuring a relevant, streamlined experience for consumers — and, importantly, increasing the chance that they take an action.

This ability to identify brand suitable environments gives marketers the opportunity to transform the internet into a place where advertising no longer feels inappropriate or disruptive. Instead of a hodgepodge of display ads and busy marketing messages, brands can offer relevant, personalised experiences — increasing the likelihood that consumers will engage with them.

7 STEPS TO CONSIDER WHEN MIGRATING TO A SMARTER CONTEXTUAL STRATEGY

1. Review your blocklist

Unfortunately, blocklists may be with us for a little while longer, but in preparation for a transition to a more efficient contextual approach, consider reviewing your current active lists. Evaluate the value and relevance of LGBTQA and ethnic minority- based terms and any other words offering a degree of ambiguity and potential misinterpretation when evaluated as a stand-alone term.

Go a step further and remove all non-specific brand terms from your blocklists. Instead, use the industry-standard contextual segments to protect you from more typical online risks as identified by the IAB.

The remaining custom terms should be clear and specific to the risks to your brand and category and should not exceed 100 terms.

If you can serve up real-world risky examples or any content alongside these custom terms, this will provide all the information your contextual partner requires, transitioning you to a 100 per cent more accurate, custom-contextual strategy.

2. URL versus Page

Not all contextual providers are the same. Make sure your partner evaluates the full page, not just the URL. Its imperative full-page analysis is performed not only for the standard risk category, but also for your custom segments. Appraising the suitability of a page via the URL string is only as inefficient as judging a book by its cover.

3. Media types

When it comes to brand safety, it is not always just about the body copy of the page. Developments in the technology now mean that it is possible to look at other page links, headlines and even video content. These capabilities vary by provider; understand what your contextual partner’s tools can evaluate at scale.

4. Occurrence versus Relationships

We know a single word does not define suitability. Just as in the offline world, a word cannot paint the full picture of an environment without consideration of all the other topics and terms surrounding it. Understand how your technology partner is scoring or evaluating true context beyond basic occurrences of terms.

5. Blackbox versus Transparency

There is nothing like testing it for yourself. You should see how your adtech partner categorises any page of your choosing. This functionality usually comes in the form of a small plug-in you can quickly add to your browser to provide complete visibility on how the tech is categorising a page and how your positive and negative segments are performing.

6. Block rates as a key performance indicator

Low block rates do not necessarily mean efficiency and accuracy — it is the quality of blocking and evaluation that counts. If you can get visibility on how content is being categorised by your providers, this will help bring confidence to your choice of a contextual safety solution provider.

7. Customisation

Brand suitability and safety rely on accuracy and customisation to navigate the content right for you. Make sure you have a fully customisable and transparent suite of segments with the ability to review the composition of these segments to adapt and update as you see fit.

CONCLUSION

The time of the blocklist is coming to an end. The archaic campaign safety tool is, unfortunately, still overused today and continues to unnecessarily impact campaign efficiency and publisher revenues. What is more, they propagate broad, often overly simplistic brushstroke stereotypes by defunding those publishers giving important airtime to diverse and progressive content.

In the 2020s, we now have far more effective tools and techniques at our disposal — specifically, custom-contextual and suitability-based approaches. At a time when brand reputation and support of progressive, diverse content is an imperative, these steps will help make any brand a more efficient and integral part of supporting both the industry and the broader, diverse content landscape.

References

(1) Mostrous, Alexi. (2017) “Big brands fund terror”, The Times, available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/big-brands-fund-terrorknnxfgb98 (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(2) Raab, David. (2015) “How many ads per day do you see? Fewer than it seems (I think)”, Customerthink, available at: https:// customerthink.com/how-many-ads-per-daydo- you-see-fewer-than-it-seems-i-think/ (accessed 1st December, 2020). (Approx. calculation based on total US ad spending and cost per thousand impressions provides = 111 paid online ads seen daily in the US per person multiplied by global population of 7.8bn multiplied by average global ad block rate of 27% or 0.73.)

(3) Worldometers.info. (2020) “Current world population”, available at: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(4) Guttmann, A. (2019) “Adblocking: penetration rate 2018, by country”, Statista, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/351862/adblocking-usage/ (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(5) Business Journals. (2017) “P&G to YouTube: Don’t pair our ads with terrorist propaganda – or cat videos”, available at: https://www. bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/09/25/p-g-to-youtube-don-t-pair-our-ads-withterrorist.html (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(6) McAteer, Oliver. (2018) “Vice slams brand safety keyword blacklists after alarming probe”, Campaignlive.co.uk, available at: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/vice-slamsbrand-safety-keyword-blacklists-alarmingprobe/1495610.

(7) Gleedy, John. (2020) “IAB report finds 94% marketers use blacklists to tackle brand safety”, The Drum, available at: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/01/20/iab-report-finds-94-marketers-use-blacklists-tackle-brand-safety.

(8) Feeley, Michael. (2020) “Keyword blocking,context and Covid-19: time for brands and adtech to accentuate the positive”, The Drum, available at: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/08/28/keyword-blocking-contextand-covid-19-time-brands-and-adtechaccentuate-the-positive (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(9) Oracle Data Cloud Contextual Insights and Analytics (2020).

(10) Miller, Daniel. (2020) “We’re churning butter and making our own candles. What has coronavirus done to us?”, Los Angeles Times, available at: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-05-14/coronavirusbutter-churning-candle-making (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(11) Ibid., ref. [9] above.

(12) Internet Advertising Bureau. (2020) “Implementation guide for brand suitability with the content taxonomy 2.2”, Iab Tech Lab, available at: https://iabtechlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Impementation-Guidefor-brand-suitability-w-IABTL-Content-Taxonomy-2.2.pdf (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(13) Ibid., ref. [9] above.

(14) Dictionary.com. (n.d.) “The problem with awesome”, available at: https://www.dictionary.com/e/awesome/ (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(15) Kraft, Andrew. (2020) “No more inflammatory jargon: Change blacklist to blocklist”, Ad Exchanger, available at: https://www.adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/nomore-inflammatory-jargon-change-blacklist-toblocklist/.

(16) Schraeder, Phil. (2019) “Women’s World Cup showed how safety guardrails cost brands valuable audiences”, AdAge.com, available at: https://adage.com/article/opinion/womensworld-cup-showed-how-safety-guardrails-costbrands-valuable-audiences/2194091 (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(17) Marciano, Jonathan. (2020) “How the LGBTQ community, marketers and publishers are hit by blacklists”, Warc, available at: https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/opinion/how-the-lgbtqcommunity-marketers-and-publishers-are-hitby-blacklists/3377 (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(18) Spangler, Todd. (2020) “Vice urges advertisers to stop blocking ‘Black lives matter’ and related keywords”, Variety, available at: https://variety. com/2020/digital/news/vice-advertiser-blockblack-lives-matter-keywords-1234648046/ (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(19) Sweeney, Mark. (2020) “UK publishers losing digital ad revenue due to content ‘blacklists’, Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian. com/media/2020/jan/20/uk-publishers-losingdigital-ad-revenue-due-to-content-blacklists (accessed 1st December, 2020).

(20) Burger King. (2020) “COVID-19 ads”, Ads of the World, available at: https://www.adsoftheworld. com/collection/covid19_ads#showdelta=27 (accessed 1st December, 2020)

(21) KFC. (2020) “COVID-19 ads”, Ads of the World, available at: https://www.adsoftheworld.com/collection/covid19_ads#showdelta=32 (accessed 1st December, 2020)