Unilever Mulls Pulling Digital Ads Near ‘Divisive’ Content: Should Others Follow Suit?
In a keynote at the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) Annual Leadership Meeting in Palm Desert, Calif. earlier this week, Unilever CMO Keith Weed noted that the CPG giant wouldn’t advertise on tech platforms that create societal division or don’t protect children.
Weed later insisted that Unilever does not plan to pull advertising from these platforms, but will instead open a dialogue with them behind the scenes to improve the services and earn the public’s trust. Whatever actions Unilever takes, its move opens up a realm of possibilities for brands and retailers seeking to take a stand against fake news or racist, sexist and divisive content.
“This has moved from being from an industry issue to a societal issue,” said Unilever CMO Keith Weed in an interview with Digiday. “We need to engage in a much more positive way and encourage them to move faster.”
The RTP team discusses Unilever’s potential exit from major social platforms, and considers the decisions retailers and brands face when dealing with fake news/divisive content on advertising platforms.
Debbie Hauss, Editor-in-Chief: I’d like to applaud Unilever for standing up to the likes of Facebook and Google, but it’s hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel here. Does Unilever really expect these companies to “clean up” the Internet? They want the platforms to avoid creating divisions in society or failing to protect young people, which are noble causes. But the fact is, while I was reading the article about this on CNN.com, I was treated to ads for insurance and consumer electronics that I’m sure Unilever wasn’t aware of and didn’t approve. So, what are these platforms to do? Well, they are making strides, although the results remain to be seen: Facebook is trying to show users where their information is coming from as part of a News Feed update. And Google has announced plans to dedicate more than 10,000 employees to tackling extremist content on YouTube in 2018. Will this be enough for Unilever and other advertisers? Will Unilever really cash in its hand and stop advertising on these platforms?
Adam Blair, Executive Editor: Unilever’s threat to abandon digital advertising platforms that play host to fabricated news, racist, sexist and extremist content sounds like something to cheer about. The move addresses the double game that Google and Facebook play: they are hands-off “platforms” with no control over content when it suits them, but are “publishers” when there’s a buck to be made. So why does this development make me so uneasy? As a journalist and a citizen, I detest both fake news and hate speech. But I wonder if profit-making companies like Unilever, Google and Facebook should be deciding where, exactly, First Amendment lines get drawn. A Frank Bruni column from the New York Times expresses his concerns that corporations are taking on roles being abandoned by enfeebled governments. Unilever has every right to decide where to spend its advertising dollars — but I didn’t vote for the CEO of Unilever.
Marie Griffin, Managing Editor: In a recent interview, Keith Weed said the power of social media platforms to magnify false and incendiary content “has moved from being from an industry issue to a societal issue,” and I agree. As the fourth-largest advertiser in the world, Unilever has the power to influence how Facebook/Instagram, Google/YouTube and other social networks handle content. However, it’s a slippery slope. Plenty of content that is shared on social platforms is flatly false, but there are numerous nuances and grey areas. I’m sure most retailers also would prefer to advertise within positive contexts, but consumers won’t necessarily engage with pretty, cleaned-up material. Marketers must decide whether to use their ad dollars to try to keep “divisive” content from the public — potentially preventing it from being vetted or disputed — but I don’t think it’s a smart media strategy or a wise move to try to influence the divisions that our larger society must address.
Glenn Taylor, Senior Editor: It definitely feels like it’s much easier to stumble upon fake news or otherwise malicious content in recent years, particularly given the social media explosion of the past decade. Companies have the right to do whatever they want with their money. If they feel it’s best used on platforms that share their views on content, then moves like Unilever’s will at the very least get social media companies thinking. For now, Unilever’s desire to open a discourse is a good start. The conversation is a great way to prevent the company from making any rash decisions, while at the same time understanding the nuance behind some of the issues they are fighting against. As we all know, there is inevitably going to be a situation that isn’t black-and-white, with questions about “What is or isn’t divisive?” likely coming into play. This means retailers and brands need to ask as many questions as possible before making a decision here.
Klaudia Tirico, Features Editor: I am not surprised that Unilever is threatening to pull adds from Google and Facebook, in fact, I welcome it. They make a strong and valid point, and it seems to be something that many consumers are aware of. Last year, a survey from the CMO Council showed that 48% of consumers said they would abandon brands they love if their ad runs alongside objectionable online content. With that said, can you blame Unilever? Liz Miller, SVP of Marketing for the CMO Council, said marketers “need to ask hard and potentially uncomfortable questions,” when I interviewed her about the survey. She added, “We need to ask, ‘Have we done an audit of the ad exchange in placing the ad? Have we put limits on where the exchange can place our ads?’ Marketers also need to question whether or not it makes sense to invest in this type of open exchange that may not have any limits.” Seems like Unilever got the memo and is taking the necessary steps to stay true to its beliefs.