Why taking action is sound business
On Tuesday, we announced that Simris will stop all advertising spend on Facebook and Instagram, in support of Black Lives Matter and as a response to Facebook’s action (or rather, lack thereof) in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd. Our full statement can be read here.
It turned out we were among the first companies to take this action, and the news was picked up by international media. For context, great examples include This Company Is Risking It All Because Black Lives Matter and Brands Speak Out to Support Black Lives Matter, But Actions Speak Louder.
I have been overwhelmed by the hundreds of likes, shares and encouraging comments. My sincere gratitude goes to everyone in support of Black Lives Matter, as this is about putting an end to injustice and not about us. But while the reactions have been almost unanimously positive, there have been a small number of negative concerns about our stance. I want to adress these comments in the following post, as an encouragement to other brands considering similar moves.
“Censorship is not a solution, we have to protect free speech even if we don’t agree”
I couldn’t agree more with that statement. The protection of democracy and free speech is the reason most communication platforms, wether curated or not, have policies in place to protect us from hate speech, promotion of violence, and similar. This is distinctly different from prohibiting someone to voice his or her opinions. Threats, harassment and purposeful spreading of disinformation are deliberate acts of aggression, not the free expression of opinion. Systematic dissemination of such messages and campaigns enable, promote, and fortify structures of brutality and disrespect of human dignity.
Donald Trump’s now infamous “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” was in clear violation of Facebook’s own policies, something Mark Zuckerberg reportedly even admitted himself while defending his position to leave the post without action. This obvious double standard led to a massive outrage among Facebook employees with deep insight in the matter. Over five thousand employees openly disagreed with the decision, a large group staged a virtual walkout, and some even decided to quit their jobs. With such profound disagreement with their employer’s ethics, we need to listen. If people are willing to go so far as to give up their livelihood to preserve their ethical integrity, how then can we as brands continue to feed the same platform with our advertising money?
While all executives can and will make the wrong decision now and then, Facebook’s stance follows a history of bad choices and operational practices that have proven deeply harmful to our society. Given its predominance as a key infrastructure of social interaction and dissemination of news in our parts of the world, Facebook has a huge responsibility to protect the fabric of trust and respect that holds our society together. There are plenty of alternatives to censorship, as shown by the examples of other platforms such as Twitter and Snapchat. However, Facebook decided not to act. Hence, it is up to us as brands to exercise our freedom of choice and opinion, and to divert to other platforms. For Simris, compromising our ethical integrity for the sake of Facebook and Insta ads is not an option.
“You hurt your business by stopping paid ads on Facebook and Instagram”
In my original statement on LinkedIn I wrote that our decision puts us at a disadvantage compared to other brands out there. After all, ads on Facebook and Instagram are great means to reach out to people who still do not know about your brand or your products. Even US media watchdog Media Matters, who is currently preparing a campaign to urge ad buyers to rethink their spending on Facebook, has admitted their concerns that most Facebook advertisers are small businesses who rely on Facebook’s ad targeting tools to reach their customers.
The decision clearly limits our choice of marketing platforms. But it’s not like Facebook and Insta are the only advertising outlets out there — in fact, this very perception of their omnipotent nature is troublesome in itself. The past years, we have seen an upsurge in platforms and services who help consumer brands reach out to their audiences in different ways. Some of them might benefit the interests of both consumer and brand in a better way than those annoying ads in your social feed, anyway. There are also plenty of great independent media outlets targeted to specific communities that would benefit from more advertisers, and of course there is traditional media where curated quality journalism is dependent on income from advertisers. Finally, pundits in the digital space have pointed out vertical social networks as the next big trend, rather than general platforms such as Facebook or Instagram.
In conclusion, what we might be seeing here is in fact a shift from Facebook’s and Instagram’s hegemony in the direct to consumer space, and towards alternative ways for brands to reach out to their audiences. As always, there will be a curve spearheaded by pioneers and early adopters, later followed by the broader mass. Brands who are able to adapt quickly and be among the first to leverage new marketing opportunities are at a great advantage here. The decision to divert marketing spending from Facebook and Instagram to alternative outlets might as well turn into an exceptionally fruitful and profitable move. (Personally, I’m quite sure it will.)
“This just proves how bad you are at doing business, focus on making a profit instead”
When this one came up on twitter, my reply was that we do not believe in profit at the expense of humanity and our planet, but rather long-term value creation for sustainable growth and profitability. This was literally equated with believing in the tooth fairy. (Ok twitter is twitter, but still.)
The idea that a business’ sole purpose is to generate profits is still alive and kicking in certain circles. It is a common vulgarization of shareholder capitalism as proposed by Milton Friedman fifty years ago. While shareholder capitalism emphasizes the primacy of shareholder interest in terms of financial returns, a more extreme interpretation allows, or sometimes even promotes, profit to be made at all costs, even if by doing harm to others.
In modern business, we are seeing a massive shift towards stakeholder capitalism instead, meaning companies should serve all their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, their communities and the planet. Focus is on long-term value creation, rather than short-term shareholder value through mere financial returns. It is important to realize that there is no trade-off between profitability and responsibility towards stakeholders. Instead, taking this responsibility and ensuring ethical business practices is essential to the long-term success and health of any business. A famous proponent of stakeholder capitalism is Salesforce co-founder and billionaire Marc Benioff, who explicitly attributes his company’s outstanding financial performance to its equal valuation of all stakeholders.
While certain enclaves on the stock market might disagree, modern investors increasingly avoid companies that harm other stakeholders (socially responsible investing, SRI), or only buy shares in companies who have a positive impact on society and/or the environment (impact investing). Long-term value creation through deep innovation and making ethical choices on how to run operations or where to allocate your marketing budgets will always come across as naive and incomprehensible to some people, but be assured that this is an outdated perspective even in financial circles.
The key to abundance is not greed, it is love.
“This is just virtue signaling”
A common way to shame someone for taking a stance is to more or less openly accuse them of being mere posers. I agree that many a virtuous act can (and maybe should) be performed without making any fuss about it at all.
To be honest, I had not expected the massive reactions on our decision. With the heated sentiment against Facebook that escalated earlier this week and the urgency to support Black Lives Matter, it just seemed to us as the only right thing to do. In a general climate where not taking action would be rightly seen as an action in itself, and staying silent would have meant support for the (racist) status quo, of course we took action, and we spoke up. That was kind of the whole point. Either you support Black Lives Matter, or you don’t. Pardon my french, but I cannot fathom a more idiotic accusation than wanting to come across as virtuous, when human lives and dignity are at stake.
Countless companies and brands issued statements in support of Black Lives Matter, or donated to charities and activism. I do think these have been sincere and heartfelt actions, and not mere marketing ploys. That said, I strongly believe ‘voting with your wallet’ is a far more powerful means to make a difference, as we need to disrupt the system which supports the racist societal structures in the first place. Hence our company’s money should not be spent on suppliers and services who do harm. These are straightforward business decisions to make, and I hope many more will follow example. As independent brands we might be small, but we are many and thus powerful.
“Who the f*** cares”
We care. And so did those thousands of people who read, liked, commented and shared our posts or following articles in Swedish and international business media. Mark Zuckerberg probably couldn’t care less. But if businesses stop buying its services, Facebook will eventually have to change its ways, or simply lose its influence. Either way the result would be a good thing. Finally, let me conclude with one of my favourite quotes by cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead:
Never believe that a few caring people can’t change the world. For, indeed, that’s all who ever have.
