As someone who helps fortune 100 companies with digital marketing, this is cynical view of Verizon and other companies. I am not sure why you are shifting the conversation from advertisers trying to reform FB to advertisers taking advantage of the media pause for positive PR. I don’t believe any of the companies with paused FB campaigns are paused elsewhere. That means Twitter, AdWords, Amazon, affiliate, and CTV spend is live. Digital marketing teams have to make hard decisions and decide how best to communicate with their customers or potential customers. Pausing FB is a step in the right direction. Other organizations have done the same on YouTube. I am as cynical as they come but I don’t see how reduced ad spend is something to hide and blame one single network.
> I don’t believe any of the companies with paused FB campaigns are paused elsewhere
> Other organizations have done the same on YouTube
Can you clarify these points because the way I read them they sound contradictory.
Also, where are you finding this info about companies' advertising spends?
Not trying to be provocative, there's just a lot of misinformation out there.
For YouTube – that happened last year. Major agencies and corporations paused their YT spend. I wasn’t clear as I’m on mobile. You can search “YouTube advertiser boycott.”
It was caused by insufficient brand safety levers for advertisers on YT. I was providing an example where advertisers paused spend to show the importance of their beliefs.
I think the difference of opinions is that it sounds like you think the boycotts are a moral stand while we think the boycotts are driven by more practical considerations (in that the ads have become less valuable, either due to reduced consumer spending or increased brand risk).
Why is it that advertisers did not care previously and for so long? The status quo for a decade was that all parties - consumers, YouTubers, advertisers, and YouTube itself did not care much about the minority of ad placements that happened to be next to niche political, mature, or sexual orientation subject matter.
Was it the uptick in activists such as Media Matters and Vox conducting name-and-shame campaigns, contacting brands with screenshots and threatening publication? Once a campaign like that picks up media cycles (like the FB one at the moment) it seems that brands follow en masse only then, and not a moment earlier.
I can't speak for each brand or agency, but the majority have been vocal with YouTube or FB or Twitter for years. Each of those ad platforms has a slew of teams that work directly with the enterprise buyers (top advertisers). I remember a major USA bank giving explicit feedback to the YouTube product team six years ago due to limited brand safe content control. I was in the room. There are still two accepted strategies for delivering ads on user generated content networks. One, that if user targeting is used and an ad is served against questionable content, then the content is less important. Why? You delivered an ad to your target market. Two, even with user targeting, the ad's context and content should align with the advertisers ad. I think we are seeing #2 uptick across the board.
For networks like YouTube and Facebook they are in control of the algorithm, feed, ad decisioning, user targeting, and cost. Why can't they afford transparency and more control for advertisers? I don't know to be honest. I assume those features would limit revenue.
To answer your last question, I also don't know what tipped it. It seems like society is shifting quickly right now and brands want to better align with those changes. Someone else asked if all of this was for the sake of practicality. That is a part of it. Users are influenced by advertising and while we can't decipher the exact mix of it that truly influences behavior, brands are trying to protect themselves from egregious content.
I try to create physical analogies for my clients. Let's pretend the path to our storefront (selling clothes) is in a manufacturing warehouse park. Who is going to be enticed to enter the path to the store, or be curious to learn about the store's wares? I predict few folks would enter. It is similar to ads across the web. Some are there to entice you to click (enter) their store and some are there to inform you. Either way, context likely has some influence. Brands acknowledge that. Not to mention, zero brands want someone to screenshot their video or display ad next to something deemed malicious.
Lastly, it is hard for advertisers to turn their backs on channels that generate high returns or are table stakes. What would you do if the billboard that drove the most customers to your store was in a seedy location 20% of the time? The billboard owner sold it as is. So you either take it or leave it. Most business owners would buy it and deal with the risk. That is what we've seen play out on YouTube and Facebook.
Edit: I will add that sophisticated advertisers are shifting their performance metrics from pure lead-generation sales or site visits to incrementality measurement. They want to measure if ad exposure changes consumer behavior. Perhaps we will see that FB and YT have high influence or not or something in the middle. The changes in measurement will have major impacts on advertising spend.
