No News Is Bad News

Sitting On The Dock Of The Bayes

Years ago, I was knee-deep in beauty briefs. They all had something in common. The no-makeup trend was everywhere—brands wanted in.?

The following submissions met the ask: encourage audiences to embrace the no-makeup look by buying no-makeup makeup ranges.

Part of me admired beauty's big beasts for this marketing masterclass. Another felt conflicted, the calculated reality of treating the trend as just another indication of unmet consumer demand gnawing at my inner idealist.??

Welcome to a life in advertising. Even those of us who've mastered the necessary high tolerance for industry-induced cognitive dissonance occasionally come a cropper.?

But don't worry, I'll save the self-flagellation for another day.?

I'm just explaining why I found parts of Nick Asbury 's book difficult.??

The reality is that I've become accustomed to assuaging my self-inflicted guilt by believing in purpose.

Look, none of us worshipped at the cause-oriented altar without our doubts. But we comfortably embraced the Janussian thinking required to tell ourselves we can sell stuff and do good.?

The Road to Hell does a pretty good job of dismantling that belief. At least, it raises serious questions about whether brands should pursue purpose and the effect of its recent rise on the industry and society (spoiler alert: it ain't good).?

It's a must-read.?

But be warned: Asbury doesn't just come for the bad guys; he comes for the good guys, too—Dove, Patagonia, and other advertiser glitterati aren't celebrated as you may expect. Far from it, in fact.?

Am I convinced that purpose should play no part in a brand's plans? Not quite. But let's just say The Road To Hell certainly unshackled me from my purpose priors.

Safety First?

Of course, purpose isn't the only area of advertising where good intentions fall short.?

Take brand safety, for example.?

No one would argue that advertisers and media agencies have set out to harm well-meaning publications by trying to protect brand image.?

Yet, that is what's happening.??

The practice of keyword blocking leads to bizarre situations where sports publications are deemed unsafe.?

Inevitably, news brands suffer the most, victims of an over-zealous ad technology sector, applying crude solutions to a complex problem.?

Just see Vox Media's President of Revenue and Growth Ryan Pauley 's post about Vox's battle with the issue.?

This is all while studies show that advertising next to news content is brand-safe regardless of the topic.

Meanwhile, brands and agencies continue to funnel more ad spend to the platform behemoths—opting to fuel their dominance despite a multitude of shortcomings.?

According to WARC , Meta, Amazon, and Alphabet will attract nearly 44% of all ad spending this year, and the companies' share is expected to grow to more than 46% over the next three years.??

In the U.K. last year, the ad market grew 6.1% to ￡36.6bn. However, tech platforms took that growth at the expense of publishers.??

The upshot of all this is the systemic underfunding of quality journalism, media institutions and independent publishers.?

Advertisers and agencies aren't just complicit here; they're responsible.?

Decisions to divert ad dollars away from news outlets threaten their existence while discouraging new competitors from entering the fray.??

Our current media institutions are far from perfect. But the answer to that problem isn't fewer of them; it's more*.?

The world needs more well-funded publications built on high journalistic standards and values like openness, accuracy, fairness and lack of bias.

(*This isn't the same as saying we should have more information—a point Yuval Noah Harari makes in his new book Nexus . Information alone doesn't necessarily help us understand the world. In reality, excess information often confounds confusion.)

How's Your Purpose

Dan Gee and I recently caught up about?Media Futures Market , a great new platform that connects advertisers and quality media owners directly.

During our chat, he reminded me about ikigai*.

According to the Japanese idea, your purpose lies at the intersection between four fundamental questions: what you love, what you're good at, what you can be paid for and what the world needs.?

(*In fairness, it was only a fleeting reference and in an entirely unrelated context to where I'm heading for the rest of this article; all cans of worms opened here are my own.)

When I look at the concept's circles, I can't help but wonder how many brands could realistically fit their purpose neatly inside.

Now, we can obviously question ikigai's application in the first place here (though, unsurprisingly, it does have corporate advocates) and no doubt Asbury would frown at this exercise, too.?

But my point is that even using the flawed machinery of purpose, brands could easily find a new 'why' to comfortably inhabit the middle of the ikigai framework.?

One which they're at least good at (read: already doing) and is also desperately needed. ???

What's more, they could start acting per this fresh objective with a straightforward step.

That novel ikigai-inspired purpose is—quite simply—supporting democracy.

The step toward it would be—quite simply again—upping ad spending with outlets prioritising quality journalism.?

Democracies rely on a rich and diverse information ecosystem. When brands pluralise their media investment across a broad spectrum of publishers, they help to support and maintain that ecosystem, protecting the critical habitat that makes a free society possible.?

So, there you have it: no need for endless soul-searching or the mental exhaustion that comes from trying to justify obtuse or contradictory values—just a big old shiny bit of purpose, ripe for adoption. ??

Of course, there's a powerful business case for the above, too. But I'll let others make it. What I'm saying is if brands are intent on tying their existence to lofty ideals, then—I don't know about you—but stopping the world from descending into a misinformation-addled hellscape presided over by a handful of techno-feudal overlords might be a good place to start.?

Brands could save humanity today. And they could do it on purpose.

WOOF!

P.S. Thanks for reading. Feel free to like and subscribe for more.