What Facebook Can Learn from Megyn Kelly

In early May, I sat down with the wonderful Debra Aho Williamson from eMarketer to discuss what—if anything—could stop Facebook’s colossal growth, both in user attention and advertising revenue. In the report, Williamson interviewed marketers and agency executives to identify what critical factors could impact Facebook’s meteoric growth.

My answer was simple:

"When you think about what could slow down Facebook’s growth, it’s the same thing that it was built on: people.”

As the second largest media platform and an impressive product roadmap, Facebook advertising is becoming the easiest media budget executives spend in their mix. Add to that, new features like Instagram Stories continue to grow in user interest, with reportedly 250M daily active users and picking up speed. 

While the platform’s growth is staggering and likely far from waning, I believe two factors Williamson uncovers in her report highlight the biggest risk to its growth long-term: 

User happiness. While seemingly incongruent, user “happiness” is declining while growth and time spent increase. A few research studies suggest this may be related to fake news, personal identity issues, or behavioral addictions related to the platform. I personally spend a lot of time on Facebook, and love it, but some people are apparently not enjoying themselves there.

Brand safety. Already we’ve seen brands pull advertising from all but a few trusted publishers. As social media platforms continue to expand ad offerings—mid-roll advertising, audience network, and so on—at what point do advertisers say that they want their content in safe spaces? Worse still, what happens if they decide they don’t want to be associated with a platform where certain kinds of content abound, even if their brands do not appear near it?

These are not minor concerns that are happening in some vague, far off future. Brands and platforms are increasingly more vulnerable to swift perception shifts—the wind can change course quickly! And while we could look back at Google, Uber, or Pepsi as glaring examples, I’d like to highlight a more recent event.

NBC’s Megyn Kelly interviews Alex Jones, and viewers and advertisers turn away.

This past weekend, NBC’s Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly aired its controversial interview with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. After weeks of calls from viewers, advertisers, and even parents of Sandy Hook victims to cancel it, NBC chose in its own words to “shine a light…on this influential figure.”   

That’s their choice, but the results should have marketers, publishers, and social platforms taking notice. Because those results were an unmitigated disaster:

• Lost viewers. Last Sunday’s edition drew in the fewest viewers of any night since the show’s debut on June 4.
• Lousy ratings. Talk about a bomb. A rerun of America's Funniest Home Videos beat Kelly’s ratings by almost 40 percent. 
• Advertising flight. Almost no brand wanted to be associated with the content. As JP Morgan Chase’s CMO Kristin Lemkau tweeted, "As an advertiser, I'm repulsed that @megynkelly would give a second of airtime to someone who says Sandy Hook and Aurora are hoaxes.” Instead, most of the ad breaks were filled with NBC show promos.

NBC’s decision may have journalistic merit, but it also provided exposure to someone who peddles conspiracy theories that the bulk of its audience found repulsive. It failed to attract viewers, turned a lot of people off, and ultimately lost the company money.

It’s undeniable that the real-time reaction from Kelly’s interview with Alex Jones showed that TV isn’t immune to both audience and advertiser choice. It also highlights an important human truth that’s reaching a crescendo in today’s cultural circles: 

Most people don’t like seeing—or promoting—vitriolic content. 

For social media platforms, this is especially concerning, because Alex Jones is not an anomaly. If your Facebook feed, for example, is like most, it has five versions of him ranting in the background. This and other platforms must start taking seriously the consequences not only of allowing such vitriol to show up unannounced, but of promoting it via algorithm.

My colleague, Simon Law, said it eloquently: "Once that feed is less inherently positive, it’s a more difficult place for brands to be. I think then the context, the environment that they’re advertising in may begin to be a question."

Positive Signs 

The good news is that Facebook—and other platforms—have made recent moves to drive out fake news, promote positive local engagement (both with individuals and local officials), and protect advertisers from unwanted brand associations. 

Social media has long been innovative around user wants, offering places of inclusion, inspiration, and connection. That makes it easy for people of any identity to congregate and find each other. Overall, that’s a very good thing. But as with anything, a platform that promotes good can also provide refuge for its opposite. And that same innovative focus needs to go in to making sure that what’s good remains, and what’s bad is curtailed or at least quarantined (see Reddit). 

If our favorite platforms lose sight of how important user happiness and brand safety are to their growth, they will learn, as NBC’s Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly did, that they’re not immune to an exodus of individuals and brands. When we offer our attention, and we get negativity and hate in exchange, no one wins.