Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Facebook Boycott Grows: Ford Joins Coca-Cola, Starbucks And Other Brands

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member JohnLanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Rep Power

    Facebook Boycott Grows: Ford Joins Coca-Cola, Starbucks And Other Brands

    The exodus of major advertisers from Facebook continues to grow as the company weathers criticism over its handling of racist, violent and other hateful rhetoric on the platform.

    Ford is one of the latest companies to announce a 30-day pause of all social media advertising on Monday. Another major brand, Pepsi, is reportedly weighing a similar move, following Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Unilever and dozens of other brands shifting their ad dollars away from Facebook.

    The brands said they are standing up against hate speech. Clorox, for instance, said it will stop all advertising on Facebook through December because "we feel compelled to take action against hate speech."

    Facebook has been under intense scrutiny over its handling of recent posts by President Trump. After weeks of a staunch hands-off approach, CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Friday reversed course as a parade of brands began severing their ties with the company. Zuckerberg said Facebook will put warning labels on posts that break its rules, even if they are newsworthy, opening the door to potentially labeling posts by Trump.

    Civil rights groups ? including the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP and Color of Change ? launched a campaign called #StopHateForProfit and urged brands to halt Facebook advertising during July, saying the social network profits off bigotry, racism and violence.

    For Facebook, which also owns Instagram, advertising is the single most important source of money, bringing in almost all revenue ? or close to $70 billion ? last year.

    Ford spokesman Said Deep told NPR on Monday that it is "actively engaged" with initiatives led by the Association of National Advertisers to increase "accountability, transparency and trusted measurement to clean up the digital and social media ecosystem."

    "The existence of content that includes hate speech, violence and racial injustice on social platforms needs to be eradicated," Deep said in a statement.

    Zuckerberg has long maintained that people should be able to see what politicians say, no matter how offensive, and has criticized Twitter's decision to label the president's tweets earlier this year. He has not addressed the advertising boycotts so far.

    "A handful of times a year, we make a decision to leave up content that would otherwise violate our policies because we consider that the public interest value outweighs the risk of that content," he said on Friday. "In the same way that news outlets will often report what a politician says, we think it's important that people should generally be able to see it for themselves on our platforms, too."

    Editor's note: Facebook, Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Unilever are among NPR's financial supporters.

    This is a great time to delete Social Media if the big advertisers are doing this.

  2. #2
    Don't drink sanitizer! raisedbywolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Rep Power
    I wish all the big advertisers would drop social media.

  3. #3
    Senior Member JohnLanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Rep Power

    Update Best Buy and Adidas has joined the boycott.

    Best Buy is pausing its ads on Facebook ads for the social media giant's apparent failure to address hate speech.

    The retailer is the latest on a growing list of big companies pausing advertising on the platform and its Instagram app for the month of July, Forbes reported, as top civil rights groups call out Facebook and other major corporations for not going far enough to end discrimination across its sites.

    "We support what groups like the NAACP and ADL are trying to achieve, and our decision was made on that basis,” a Best Buy spokesperson told FOX Business, confirming the decision.

    Among the other names joining the boycott are Adidas, Ford, Starbucks and Unilever. Clorox, Patreon, Denny’s and Pepsi have all also declared the same.

    Facebook was pointed to in recent days after it initially declined to add a warning label to a post from President Donald Trump that said looting would lead to shooting amid nationwide protests against police brutality and discrimination. The company later announced it would begin to label posts from politicians that violate its policies.

    Facebook said in response to the boycott that it “spends billions of dollars each year to keep our community safe and continuously work with outside experts to review and update our policies. We know we have more work to do, and we’ll continue to work with civil rights groups, GARM, and other experts to develop more tools, technology and policies to continue this fight.”

    While shares of the tech giant were up 2 percent Monday, they have been dropping as more companies sign onto the boycott. Shares ended down 8 percent Friday and have dropped 4 percent in the last month, including a near-8 percent slide in the last seven days.

  4. #4
    Senior Member JohnLanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Rep Power

    Chipotle, HP, Pfizer and Puma have joined in the Boycott

    A growing number of major advertisers are abandoning Facebook amid criticism the social media company is letting hateful or false posts go unchecked.

    Chipotle, HP, Pfizer and Puma are the latest to pull their ads from Facebook. They join a list of major brands including Adidas, Clorox, Coca-Cola, Conagra, Denny's, Ford, Starbucks, Unilever and scores of smaller businesses that have halted advertising on the platform. A pledge by Mark Zuckerberg on Friday to label rule-breaking posts has done little to mollify advertisers.

    In all, more than 100 brands have pledged to boycott the social media giant, while prominent critics including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have also thrown their influential weight behind the boycott, according to reports.

    The campaign also appears to have dented Facebook's stock. Its shares have dropped roughly 8% since the boycott started gaining steam last week, slashing $53 billion off the company's stock market value.

    Although Facebook has faced plenty of boycotts in the past, the latest campaign — spearheaded by leading civil rights groups such as the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League — could have more staying power, analysts say.

  5. #5
    Senior Member JohnLanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Rep Power

    On Wednesday, more than 500 companies officially kicked off an advertising boycott intended to pressure Facebook into taking a stronger stand against hate speech. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has agreed to meet with its organizers early next week.

    But whether Zuckerberg agrees to further tighten the social network’s carefully crafted rules probably boils down to a more fundamental question: Does Facebook need big brand advertisers more than the brands need Facebook?

    In a broad sense, the current boycott, which will last at least a month, is like nothing Facebook has experienced before. Following weeks of protests against police violence and racial injustice, major brands have for the first time joined together to protest still-prevalent hate speech on Facebook’s platforms by taking aim at the social network’s $70 billion in annual ad revenue.

    After years of piecemeal measures to address hate, abuse and misinformation on its service, Facebook’s critics hope that pinching the company where it hurts will push it toward more meaningful change. As of Wednesday, 530 companies have signed on — and that’s not counting businesses like Target and Starbucks, which have paused advertising but did not formally join the “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign, which calls its action a “pause” rather than a boycott.

    “Many businesses told us how they had been ignored when asking Facebook for changes,” campaign organizers wrote in a letter to advertisers this week. “Together, we finally got Facebook’s attention.”

    But Facebook’s already-tarnished public image may sustain more damage than its business. If the ad pause lasts one month, Citi Investment Research analyst Jason Bazinet estimates, the likely impact on Facebook’s stock will be $1 per share. Based on Wednesday’s closing price of $237.92, that’s a decline of less than half a percent.

    If the businesses extend their boycott indefinitely, Bazinet suggests the likely impact would be $17 a share, or about a 7% decline. That’s less than the 8% drop Facebook shares sustained on Friday after global consumer-products maker Unilever said it would pause advertising on Facebook and Instagram for the rest of the year.

    Also, Facebook shares have already bounced back from that dip.

    On Wednesday, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice president of global affairs and communications, tried to reassure businesses that Facebook “does not benefit from hate” and said the company has every incentive to remove hate speech from its service. He acknowledged that “many of our critics are angry about the inflammatory rhetoric President Trump has posted on our platform and others, and want us to be more aggressive in removing his speech.”

    Clegg, however, offered few concessions, and instead repeated Zuckerberg’s frequent talking point that “the only way to hold the powerful to account is ultimately through the ballot box.” He pointed to Facebook’s get-out-the-vote efforts as evidence of the company’s commitment, along with the billions of dollars, tens of thousands of content moderators and other investments it has made in trying to improve its platform.

    While Facebook is making efforts to hear out its critics, it remains clear that ultimate decisions will always rest with its founder and CEO, who holds the majority of the company’s voting shares and could effectively run the company for life, should he desire to.

    It’s not clear that he’ll see any reason to bend further to meet protesters’ demands.

    “Data of past boycotts suggests the observable impact is relatively mild,” said Brian Wieser, global president of business intelligence at GroupM, advertising holding company WPP’s media agency arm.

    At the same time, he added, given these “extraordinary times,” it’s possible that a long-term, pervasive boycott could shift advertising dollars away from Facebook to other companies.

    Beyond bad PR, though, experts say the protest isn’t likely to make a lasting dent in Facebook’s ad revenue, in part because plenty of other advertisers can step in. Stifel analysts said in a note to investors this week that “well over” 70% of Facebook’s advertising dollars come from small and medium-sized businesses and “these advertisers may be less concerned with the optics of where their ads are placed than large brands.” Citing data from Pathmatics, Stifel said the top 100 brands spent roughly $4.2 billion on Facebook ads last year, representing around 6% of the company’s nearly $70 billion of total ad revenue in 2019.

    Facebook hosts more than 8 million advertisers, according to JPMorgan. “We do not expect significant risk to numbers for Facebook as many other marketers ... will take advantage of potentially lower-priced inventory,” JPMorgan analyst Doug Anmuth wrote in an investor note.

  6. #6
    Senior Member JohnLanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Rep Power

    World Federation of Advertisers CEO Stephan Loerke says he believes the slew of big brands publicly switching off social media advertising aren’t likely to come back until real change is made.

    “I don’t see those big brands come back if there hasn’t been structural change,” Loerke said in an interview with CNBC. “That’s my take on the basis of my conversations with them.”

    The trade group’s 120 members, which include PepsiCo, P&G and Diageo, represent 90% of global marketing communications spending, the group says. In a recent survey of 58 of those companies, the WFA found that 31% of respondents had already decided to withhold or were likely to withhold social media advertising. 41% said they were undecided, and 29% said they were unlikely or not planning to withhold.

    The survey comes as major advertisers from Unilever to Starbucks have announced various degrees of pauses to their social media advertising budgets, following a campaign called ”#StopHateForProfit” by a group of organizations calling on advertisers to boycott Facebook for the month of July.

    Although Facebook has spent recent weeks trying to stanch the departure of ad dollars with meetings and memos, an address from CEO Mark Zuckerberg to employees, reported by The Information on Wednesday, suggested the company doesn’t plan to make changes based on the demands of advertisers. Zuckerberg reportedly said though the boycott posed reputational issues, his guess was “that all these advertisers will be back on the platform soon enough.”

    Loerke told CNBC that he’s aware temporary pauses aren’t likely to ding Facebook financially, but that they signal a larger sea change in how companies are thinking about social media. He said even many of the companies that aren’t pausing have said they’re determined to find solutions to issues posed by social media.

    “If big brands withdraw like they seem to be withdrawing for a month, or a few months, it’s probably not going to be making any big dent in the revenue of Facebook,” he said. “I do think that the point of view, which those brands express, have a certain weight in the industry, and I think that in the longer term, that will have an importance for social media platforms.”

    He said he’s also skeptical brands will just jump back to the platform if no changes are made.

    “From the conversations I’m having with the brands, those which went public in order to state they were going to be pausing are very aware that they made those statements publicly. And they’re also very aware that the same media who actually took note of that decision will be asking questions the day they restart,” he said. “I think that those brands which have been public are serious about driving change collectively.”
    Societal safety

    Advertisers have been pressuring the platforms to clean up for years. In 2017, the Times of London published a blockbuster report on advertisements from major brands appearing on hate sites and YouTube videos created by supporters of terrorist groups. Consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble kept its ads off YouTube for more than a year, starting in 2017, after its ads were found adjacent to extremist videos.

    But Loerke said the issue morphed from one of “brand safety” to focus more on “societal safety,” exacerbated perhaps by the streaming last year of a shooting of more than 50 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, which appeared on Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. Another shooting outside of a synagogue in Halle, Germany, was amplified last year when a video of it appeared on video streaming site Twitch and then found its way to other sites.

    But even if ads aren’t appearing in or alongside specific videos, the video platforms are financed substantially by ad dollars. And since so much of the web is funded by advertisers, many of those advertisers say they have responsibility for the web.

    All of this has created a turning point, Loerke says, moving from an era of media being all about efficiency and effectiveness and reach to one where the allocation of media spend has a strategic dimension.

    “The way you allocate your media spend, where you put your ads, talks about your company,” he said. “We moved from brand safety to, I think, societal safety.”

    What comes next?

    Loerke says he believes operators in the ecosystem, including the social media platforms, have an interest in mitigating hateful speech and content. But the way it’s done now, he says, is unsustainable and inefficient, with platforms, agency holding companies and brand owners each with their own policies, values and tools.

    “That leads to plenty of operators which operate in good faith, but a system which is simply unscalable and inefficient,” he said. “The only way to address this is to find a system and to put in place a system which is across the ecosystem, which will allow brand owners to make informed choices about where they put their ads.”

    He said for that to happen, four things need to be changed: Content needs standardization, so there is alignment, for instance, in the definition of “hate speech” across entities; data needs to be collected about incidents of hate speech and other harmful content in a unified way; third-party verification is needed instead of self-reported data; and tools that operate across the ecosystem that let brands act according to their values.

    The World Federation of Advertisers last year created the Global Alliance for Responsible Media to tackle issues like this. Loerke said the social media platforms have been working with GARM on these goals.

    “I think the fact that pressure is increasing and that public visibility of this has reached the level it has reached today; it is going to be helping accelerate our effort,” he said.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts