Last week, big brands jettisoned parts of their digital advertising budgets after they realised their ads were appearing next to jihadist preachers on YouTube.
For balance — there were white supremacists groups too…
Indeed.
By enabling monetisation on YouTube, a video-maker can earn a slither of the advertising revenue generated when an ad is clicked.
This seemingly innocuous feature has opened up a side door for those with less noble pursuits and more extremist views, to attract ads to their own videos, and the rest is — recent — history.
In short — many firms found their advertising budget was being used to display banner ads over YouTube videos, and therefore indirectly funding extremists and of course potentially damaging their brand cache.
UK Government Muscle Flexing
Before we’re cast off to sea by Brexit, we do at least have some clout in reserve.
Google was summoned before the UK government to explain why taxpayers are “unwittingly funding extremists” through advertising, reported The Times’s investigation
Be it brand protection, kneejerk reaction or political motivation, this news had a profound effect on the industry.
All Stop!
Well, not all — mostly YouTube ad budgets.
Still, at over 250 organisations and counting, the list of UK casualties is long.
Among those suspending ads are:
- Audi
- BBC
- Channel 4
- HSBC
- L’Oréal
- Marks & Spencer
- McDonald’s
- Tesco
- The Guardian newspaper
Outside the US, we in Great Britain are the biggest market for Google who generate some $8bn per year from UK business.
But this boycott is not just confined to the UK, similar action has been taken in the US and Europe as well.
“Cillit Bang — and the Jihad is gone!” *commented one Mr Scott, of Reckitt Benckiser.
*obviously he didn’t
There are Mistakes, and then there’s Shit Hitting Fan
We all make mistakes.
But, this one’s not so easy to clean up.
Google has since apologised after ads appeared next to extremist content.
In a move to calm fears, Google has announced it will give us marketers and brands more control over placements on the 1-Billion-user-video-sharing-platform, YouTube.
Google is bad, the internet is bad, society is bad.
Everything is bad.
The Programmatic Fallacy
Oh wait a minute, so Google isn’t bad?
That depends.
In contrast to when you buy advertising on ‘good old fashioned’ TV and radio, in digital formats the ‘slots’ where advertisements appear are allocated by computer algorithms and a complex automated auction-style exchange system.
Humans still control and initiate the buying process, we build the campaigns, apply targeting and create the ads — but a lot of the complex work falls to computers.
This side of the process is often referred to as ‘programmatic’.
Shotgun thy Consumer
Programmatic media buying relies on technology to do the heavy lifting. With larger budgets relying even more heavily on the algorithms to iron out the kinks.
If you have a platform as large as YouTube, and you’re auctioning off slots by the million every split-second of every minute, then — programmatic or not — you need to be in control.
Ultimately then with Google providing the platform and the market, they’re in the wrong.
Revolution or Evolution?
Google has apologised.
Their big hitters have come out and promised better.
But will this publicity damage Google’s reputation and revenue?
Yes — the flow of money away from TV and print could slow, but only if advertising and media agencies can’t be transparent about how they spend money.
It’s unfortunate for Google then, that a considerable number of those affected in this recent scandal, have been negatively impacted by the growth in the digital ad space too.
With print and publications taking on rot for years, this may seem like nothing more than opportunistic.
“Let’s face it — the press have every interest in keeping this story running…”
That said, they still need to generate revenue too.
In the digital ad space, Google and Facebook have immense power.
Over 60% of ad spend in the UK is split between Google and Facebook, with an eye watering 90% of all new budgets going to either platform.
So it’s Not All Bad Then?
Sorry Mr Print, the good old days are not coming back.
It really is too early to tell how the negative press will impact Google.
General consensus is Google won’t see their valuations hit over issues with inappropriate content.
Michael Roth, CEO of global advertising giant Interpublic, told the Financial Times that the “scandal is unlikely to presage a collapse in Google revenues”, but agreed that it would of course lose business if it can’t fix the issue.
The 200 Billion Dollar Question
Thanks in part to advances in mobile technology — digital advertising spend is experiencing it’s fastest growth for 7 years.
This tremendous growth shows little sign of slowing down.
Global spending on internet advertising will surpass TV advertising for the first time this year. Digital (or internet) advertising is beginning to eclipse TV and is set streak away over the next 5 years.
But recent events have highlighted the single biggest concern for me, and I’d suggest the wider industry.
Trust.
Or, a lack thereof.
The Real Issue: Transparency in our Digital Age
Trust is earned.
Not by peppering people with ads and hoping for the best.
Just over a year ago now I wrote, CEOs & CMOs. It’s Time to Wake Up — Your Marketing is Poison — tldr; “satisfy your customers first, not your marketing budget.”
Hopefully this spell of bad news will see the creation of a better toolset from Google, to avoid a repeat of recent events, and of course bring more care and attention on how best practices and ideas are rolled out to audiences.
Is this the dawn of greater transparency from agencies, platforms and the industry as a whole?
I certainly hope so.
It could just be the proverbial kick up the ass that we all needed to do a better job.
Let’s make this the moment where we turn the tide against the rise of crap.
