The high profile withdrawal by several global brands including Volkswagen, Toyota, Tesco, ITV, Aviva, Heinz and even the UK Government, of advertising on Google and YouTube, followed media investigations revealing that many of these companies were being advertised alongside videos posted by extremists, hate preachers, rape apologists, white nationalists and other undesirable or controversial content.
While initial reports suggested 250 companies - mostly in the UK and mainland Europe - suspended advertising with Google, there was no initial worldwide blanket withdrawal. Yet, the scandal did wash across the Atlantic to US shores with two of the world's largest telcos, AT&T and Verizon, as well as Johnson & Johnson and car rental giant Enterprise Holdings joining a growing list of brands outside of Europe to stop advertising with Google.
Within advertising agencies itself, there seems to be no unified stance. Havas Media, the French advertising giant that operates in 144 countries was the first to press pause on Google advertising on behalf of its UK clients and also the first to announce that they “will not be undertaking such measures on a global basis”. Instead a statement on behalf of Havas’ Asia Pacific Region (APAC) read: “The decision of our UK team to pause activity with our partner Google is a temporary move made on behalf of our UK clients and their specific needs... We are working with Google to resolve the issues so that we can return to using this valuable platform in the UK.”
This was echoed by WPP’s GroupM who said they would also not adopt a blanket ban, but will work “with concerned individual clients” to craft solutions. Publicis Media APAC was quoted by media and marketing website Mumbrella Asia as saying they are “committed to being at the forefront of rigorous brand safety” and hold all publishers accountable “to ensure that the highest standards of advertising are consistently met”. They continue to place adverts on behalf of clients with Google.
There’s little doubt that Google fell short of meeting standards and they admitted as much with Philipp Schindler, chief business officer at Google saying in a blog post, “we have strict policies that define where Google ads should appear, and in the vast majority of cases, our policies and tools work as intended. But at times we don’t get it right”.
This was a repeat of what Ronan Harris, managing director of Google UK said earlier in a public comment titled ‘Improving our brand safety controls’. His argument hinged on the fact that “with millions of sites in the Google network and 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, we recognise that we don't always get it right. In a very small percentage of cases, ads appear against content that violates our monetisation policies. We promptly remove the ads in those instances, but we know we can and must do more.”
But can they? If you take Harris on the letter of his word, 65 years of video gets uploaded to YouTube every day. To make good on his promise will either take a sudden quantum leap in sophisticated automation technology or employing human eyes at a rate - and cost - yet to be calculated to be able to truly reassure brands that it is safe to return to YouTube, or anywhere else on the internet for that matter.
Get stories like these every week directly in your inbox. Subscribe to our (free) FIPP World newsletter.
The Google-gate fallout is hardly a surprise, and not limited to just one company. While some brands claim this is the first time they have realised their ads appeared in ‘dodgy places’, it’s been happening all along and forewarned for years. Buyers of programmatic ads might have been told that tools exist to prevent ads from showing up in brand hostile environments like porn, gambling, fake news or hate speech sites, but shortcomings have been there since the very beginning. And at times even technology can’t be blamed.
In November last year Digiday warned that there is “a degree of fraud” prevalent in “anything ad tech”, while FIPP also wrote extensively on the topic of ad fraud here, here and here in the last couple of years.
The site said “although blacklists can block ads from appearing on any given site, agencies and performance marketing vendors aren’t always incentivised to use them since much of digital media buying is still premised on cheap reach.”
They quoted Michael Horn, managing director of data science at Huge saying: “If you’re an agency who’s incentivised only on efficiency of delivery, this is the kind of site you’re tempted to keep on the plan, even when the effect is to fund hate speech… It’s a position clients knowingly or unknowingly push their agencies into, and agencies don’t always have the time or will to push back.”
Given this backdrop, it’s worth taking a more sobering view of the now over publicised criticism directed at both Google and Facebook. There is the suggestion by Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of the world’s largest marketing services group WPP, that these giants cannot masquerade as technology companies while placing advertisements and that both should have the same responsibilities as any other media company. WPP continues to spend significant percentages of digital ad budgets on Google and Facebook.
Disregard for brand safety is a big issue and will have global repercussions. USA Today quotes analyst Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research Group who argues that brand safety has emerged as the biggest issue facing the advertising industry today. “For large marketers, even one ad placed next to extremist content can cause untold harm to a brand”.
Brands should be concerned about where their ads appear, on the internet or otherwise. But more importantly, they should also be concerned with how the decisions are taken for placing their ads. If they did this in the first place, it would not have landed in close proximity to inappropriate content.
It’s easy to argue - but hard to prove - that ad agencies and social platforms are not as concerned about brand value as profit. Yet, action speaks louder than words. If Google can be taken only on words (the reaction to the latest scandal), then advertisers and agencies will soon have transparent tools to see where their ads are running. Google say they will also be hiring “significant numbers of people and developing new tools powered by latest advancements”. They will “act swiftly to put these new policies and processes in place…”. This will be done “carefully, preserving the value we currently provide to advertisers, publishers and creators of all sizes”.
There are of course other ways for brands to attempt to (re)-take control of ad placement. One would be to hold agencies accountable for inappropriate placements, which can be dealt with by adding a straightforward penalty clause to the initial contract.
Then maybe the likes of Google and Facebook will start to take collective responsibility for ad placement and invest more rigorously in both effective big data solutions and the staff to overcome any technology shortcomings.
* Magazine media publishers, who have long demonstrated how effective advertising in tightly segmented and positioned brands can be, may be forgiven a touch of schadenfreude upon hearing about Google’s pain. Here is a story and chart from our archive on magazine ad effectiveness:
Guy Consterdine article.
Statista Chart of the week
More like this
Consumer-facing publishers may soon be adding visual search to their e-commerce offerings, if visual search takes off. Outlined by Jenny Griffiths, founder and CEO of Snap Tech, at the Digital Innovator’s Summit in Berlin March 20, technologies like Snap Tech may change the way the world shops, which would be especially valuable for publishers.20th Mar 2018 Features
With countless publishing brands battling to maintain cash-flow and build a solid business model, many are pinning their hopes on building subscription businesses. During this week’s Digital Innovators’ Summit (DIS) in Berlin the topic proved to be a recurring theme.20th Mar 2018 Features
Throughout DIS 2018 representatives of companies from across the globe have taken to the stage to share their insights about how they are growing their businesses. For the mid morning segment on the second day, execs from two tech based companies, both of whom have a very strong print heritage, explained how they had adapted their business models and where they are likely to venture to in the future. They both constantly referenced premium quality content as being at the core of their strategy.20th Mar 2018 Features
As voice-activated devices and services become more ubiquitous, new opportunities are opening up for publishers to reach users. On day two of the Digital Innovators’ Summit in Berlin, Alexander Bregman, Strategic Partner Development Manager at Google EMEA, explained how the combination of Google Assistant and the rise of smart speakers could lead to great partnerships with publishers in the very near future.20th Mar 2018 Features
When I look at the state of mainstream media, I can’t help but ask the question. Why are so many news publishers pivoting back to paywalls when they didn’t work for most of them before?12th Mar 2018 Opinion
While digital titles specialising in health and well-being are showing strong growth in developed markets such as Finland, the next step is to lead consumers from inspiration to transaction, and to go global, says new FIPP board member Kaisa Ala-Laurila, CEO of A-lehdet in Finland.12th Mar 2018 Features
It’s been another year of rapid change and innovative publishers continue to assemble a quiver full of new solutions to drive their businesses forward – something that becomes apparent when you page through the new 2018/19 edition of Innovation in Magazine Media 2018-2019 World Report, launched today at Digital Innovators’ Summit (DIS) in Berlin.19th Mar 2018 Features
Maureen Hoch, editor of Harvard Business Review’s HBR.org on Monday provided insight into the experimental work HBR has been doing with new media formats in the past year to reach and engage audiences, including subscribers, in new ways.19th Mar 2018 Features
“The notion that print is dead is not accurate. I think print isn’t dead, it’s just different. Gone are the times where you can operate with an inflated rate base or 12 times per year as a standard. And I think gone are the days too where you were just concerned with whether there was enough fax paper in the machine where you got all of your signed insertion orders back. Those days are behind us. But print for many companies, Bonnier included, is still profitable. It’s just not at the margins that we once enjoyed. And I feel strongly that brands that sit one or two in a category or vertical can thrive if managed correctly.” - Eric Zinczenko, CEO, Bonnier Corporation12th Mar 2018 Features
Visit our Youtube channelFIND OUT MORE
FIPP newsletters allow you to keep up with industry trends, research, training and events across the worldFIND OUT MORE
Get global coverage of your launches, company news and innovationsFIND OUT MORE
What’s happening now, what’s coming next