The CEO of the biggest ad buying network says brands need to put more media dollars toward making a positive social impact and less on funding hate speech
Summary List Placement
In the early days of television, advertisers and networks learned the hard way that honesty and transparency were essential to a functioning media. After sponsors and networks got caught colluding to rig popular quiz shows like "The $64,000 Question" in the 1950s, both sides accepted that it was in their best interest not to trifle with the public's trust. In the long run, they realized, you can't sell products to people who've been conditioned to view everything they see on TV with skepticism and disgust. That understanding remained a bedrock principle throughout the evolution of 20th century media, even holding firm in the early days of the internet. Though each side aggressively represented its own interests — brands would always like the media to push their wares a bit harder; media would always like advertisers to spend more and ask for less control — they have always settled on acceptable rules of engagement for each new frontier. But in the digital age, communication channels have evolved far beyond the control of advertisers and media companies. Digital media platforms like Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and YouTube have upended the classic dichotomy by enabling the viewer to also become the writer, director, and producer. With the general public thus empowered, mainstream advertisers inevitably — and unwittingly — found themselves funding hateful, dangerous, or just plain untrustworthy content. Naturally, sponsors pressured these social media companies to clean up their act. Those companies responded with "brand safety" protocols that allowed them to continue running user-generated content without sacrificing the advertiser dollars that fueled their astonishing growth. But it hasn't been enough. As political and social tensions have reached a fever pitch in the US, the public is increasingly holding brands, media companies, and social media platforms responsible for the content they choose to elevate — unwittingly or otherwise. What we are now seeing is the nightmare feared in the 1950s: Consumers don't know whom to trust, and they are taking advertisers to task for bankrolling the chaos. So far, advertiser efforts to address the situation have proved about as effective as those "brand safety" protocols. The #StopHateforProfit boycott of Facebook this summer reportedly drained the platform of millions of dollars in revenue. But the effort fizzled once advertisers realized the boycott was doing more damage to their own bottom line that it was to Facebook's. It's a frustrating and unsustainable new reality. But there is a way out. The good news is that the solution depends on technology that already exists. The bad news is that it requires marketers to once again assume responsibility for building a safe and trustworthy media environment. A call for marketers to measure their advertising's social impact As advertisers, we need to change the mathematical models we use to value media. We need to evolve our valuation and measurement so they place a premium not just on reach, viewability, and effectiveness, but on social and environmental impact. We need to be willing to pay more for clicks that help boost a stable society, not just our quarterly reports. In addition to cost-per-impression, we need to be measuring cost-per-social contribution. We need to start factoring a media placement's carbon footprint into our ad pricing. We need to support publishers that reach more diverse audiences, even if those publishers don't yet provide the level of audience data we've grown accustomed to. And we need to do this with more than the usual 10% experimental budget. This means the introduction of new tools that empower marketers to consider these sorts of ethical and moral consequences when buying media. Just as ESG investing and sustainable funds have become billion-dollar businesses on Wall Street, we believe that socially conscious media buying will find an enthusiastic audience among advertisers. Some people in our industry may consider that naïve. But we believe that marketers understand the necessity of a functioning, trustworthy media to their own bottom line. If we are willing to pay twice the price for an impression that improves our click-through rate from 0.1% to 0.2%, shouldn't we be able to muster the will to pay more for an ad that's likely to produce a net positive good for the planet overall? That is the $64,000 question, and, in 2020, I'd like to think we already know the answer. Christian Juhl is global CEO of GroupM, a part of WPP and the world's largest media investment company.SEE ALSO: As TV giants push their legacy businesses to the background, it may be time for them to embrace selling like Facebook and Google do Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: What makes 'Parasite' so shocking is the twist that happens in a 10-minute sequence
More like this (3)
Summary List PlacementIn the wake of violence at the US Capitol, advertisers are playing it safe...Summary List PlacementIn the wake of violence at the US Capitol, advertisers are playing it safe with their messaging around President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration. Wednesday, January 20, is more likely to be a sombre than joyous occasion, and advertisers are thinking about how to manage the possibility of unexpected events. Some advertisers have big-budget campaigns tied to the inauguration. Matt Bayer, head of integrated...
After last month’s Facebook boycott, companies are demanding more control over how their ads appear online....After last month’s Facebook boycott, companies are demanding more control over how their ads appear online. And the tech companies seem to be listening.
Duke of Sussex urges advertisers to demand companies do more to curb hate speech onlinePrince Harry...Duke of Sussex urges advertisers to demand companies do more to curb hate speech onlinePrince Harry has hit out at social media companies for creating a “crisis of hate” and called for “meaningful digital reform” after an unprecedented advertiser boycott of Facebook.In an opinion piece for the US business magazine Fast Company, the Duke of Sussex revealed that he and his wife, Meghan, had...