As the power struggle between advertisers and platforms continues, questions about brand safety continue to arise in the advertising industry.
Last year, X owner Elon Musk told advertisers to “f*** themselves” after major brands including Disney, Apple and IBM pulled ads from the platform over concerns they might appear alongside harmful content.
Last week, X filed an antitrust lawsuit that led to the dissolution of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media just days later.
Musk claimed that advertisers had imposed an “illegal boycott” to hold back their ad spending. On X, he posted: “We spent two years trying to be nice and all we got was empty words. Now it’s war.”
GARM, an industry watchdog established in 2019 by the World Federation of Advertisers, worked to reduce advertising monetization on platforms that produce harmful content.
While some trademark consultants say the lawsuit could be “catastrophic and frivolous” for X, others say GARM’s boycott of Musk’s social media platform was the right idea but was implemented incorrectly.
Darren Woolley, founder and global managing director of marketing consultancy Trinity P3, argues: “Advertisers have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders and customers, but that does not give them the right to disregard antitrust laws.”
The question remains: will organizations stop denouncing harmful media practices online if an industry association is forced to close under the weight of a lawsuit from a powerful platform?
Hannah Kimuyu, Managing Director Performance, Brave Bison
The fact that X wants to sue GARM should have no impact. GARM is an important organization and extremely necessary to address the challenges of brand and audience protection. It was created to help advertisers avoid harmful content next to their ads, thus protecting their audiences and their experiences.
Advertisers are increasingly taking responsibility, but still need an independent body to hold them to account and protect their brands, be it GARM or another organization. Accountability and responsibility must be there, especially in the garb of “free speech” and the obvious division we are seeing at X.
Paul Bainsfair, Director General, IPA
GARM provided advertisers with useful tools like the Brand Safety Floor, but it did so as part of a broader ecosystem of advertiser protections. GARM’s dissolution is entirely understandable for a small, nonprofit trade organization in response to the prospect of significant legal costs. This does not mean that the dissolution was justified, or that it will encourage a flood of advertisers returning to X. If anything, these intimidation tactics will cause large individual advertisers to pay even closer attention to how brand-safe or otherwise individual platforms and their content are.
Andy Nairn, Founding Partner, Lucky Generals
I think it will have the exact opposite effect. Brand owners are rightly concerned that platforms are not taking brand safety seriously. This is exacerbated in the case of X, because Musk seems to be actively fostering a toxic environment (as opposed to passively allowing it, which better describes the complaint raised against others). In particular, his aggressive pursuit of GARM (an ironic move for the supposed champion of free speech!) will only exacerbate this fear.
For Musk, the current legal proceedings have at best a short-term chilling effect on collective, organized criticism, but they will not stop many individual brands and agencies from speaking out or simply from advertising with him. In the medium and longer term, it will fail because his legal arguments seem so flimsy (like many such tyrants, he relies on his deep pockets rather than his legal skills) and because governments around the world have made it clear they will intervene – not to suppress free speech, but to prevent hate.
Jon Mew, Managing Director, IAB UK
No – I believe the opposite is true. Now is the time to double down on best practice. The closure of GARM has understandably raised many questions and left some advertisers feeling isolated. This makes it all the more important that we continue to work together across the industry and advocate for standards and frameworks that counteract online risk so advertisers have confidence in their spend.
These initiatives have largely been initiated and coordinated by industry associations. While it is not the role of industry associations to tell advertisers where to invest, their role is to enable effective self-regulation and provide advertisers with voluntary ways to improve transparency and brand safety. This approach not only benefits our entire industry, but also shows the government that we can proactively keep our house in order and solve common challenges.
Jeff Matisoff, Partner, Jellyfish
No, that certainly won’t stop us. As an industry, we have a duty of care to identify what environments are right for each of our customers, to analyze the performance of those environments against each of our customers’ business goals, and a broader duty of care to build a just and sustainable world. Calling out bad practices drives change, improves standards, and practices evolve for the better, every time we put our customers first and put human decency first.
Stephen Woodford, Executive Director of the Advertising Association
No, it is in everyone’s interest that online advertising takes place in a safe environment – one that is trusted, inclusive and sustainable. This is a priority for all our members across the advertising ecosystem, from advertisers to agencies and media owners to the technology companies. As such, there will always be room to highlight where there are issues that need to be addressed, as well as the positive steps organisations are taking to tackle poor practice. A critical component is the Online Advertising Programme, where our industry is working in partnership with the UK Government to make positive progress and ensure the highest possible standards.
Phil Smith, Director General, ISBA
The fact is that X’s action should not and will not stop the pursuit of greater brand safety – because it is fundamental to a healthy, responsible advertising environment.
Advertisers have a legitimate expectation that the platforms they use to reach consumers will abide by their own terms and conditions and will do so visibly when it comes to tackling and removing harmful content, such as that promoting terrorism or exploitation. The tragedy of recent events is that brands, agencies, trade bodies and the platforms have worked together to identify and demonetise this content.
ISBA members understand that transparency in their supply chains is critical to enable them to make responsible marketing decisions. As this transparency is not yet fully achieved, it would be presumptuous to assume that these efforts end here.
