Why advertisers need to re-think advertising in the tabloids (& on unregulated social platforms)..
There has always been controversy around advertiser placement next to inappropriate content, but the Caroline Flack tragedy has started a new chapter. Clearly The Sun has printed salacious headlines to sell newspapers many times before, but its hounding of Flack in these days of evil Instagram and Twitter trolls has set a new low.
The tabloids have faced a barrage of criticism for funding hate in recent years, but this time it seems that its pursuit of flogging more copies and clicks has led a woman in her prime to mental health torment - a place so grim she felt taking her life was the only escape. The two Love Island contestants that died in recent years knew that same pain.
Was it really necessary to print pictures of the so-called crime scene after Flack was accused of “lamping” her boyfriend? Or the Valentine’s Day card article which similarly poked fun at her?
Is it acceptable that an industry that funds this journalism turns a blind eye to this? Not in my book, no. And before newspapers retort that the more acute problem is really with social platforms like Facebook and filter bubbles, let me say that I agree. Well, I do at least partly. The big social platforms must be coerced to take more responsibility for the content that ends up in front of us and our kids, but they do not create the content.
The Sun (feel free to replace with The Daily Mail) operates a business model based on invading the lives of those in the public eye: bribing, spying and conniving to find the grubbiest secrets that will bring in the clicks and eyeballs. This is different to the social networks. But neither behaviour can be allowed to continue.
The editorial team deleting The Sun articles after the event and the MailOnline printing pictures of the flat where Flack died just yesterday, tell you everything you need to know about the ethics of the organisations we are talking about.
How ironic that The Sun executive editor Dan Wootton now feels the need to defend the treatment of one of his “favourite people in the industry”, suggesting she was “hung out to dry by ITV” (ITV must also take a long hard look in the mirror here as Flack as a woman was treated very differently to Ant after his substance problems were made public). Even after death the media seems compelled to chase click after click.
With Leveson Two scrapped by the government and Johnson not looking a likely contender to reverse that, we must look to the industry that funds the media and the content platforms where the content lives.
If any collective of advertisers that appear next to content are the means to which a journalist and editor is at least partly paid, then are those advertisers not are at best endorsing, and at worst condoning this behaviour? I am sure that, looked at like this, many brands would be keen to explore whether they are doing all they can.
The Global Alliance of Responsible Media started by the World Federation of Advertisers and backed by brands like Unilever, Diageo and Vodafone has been created to tackle this and related heady topics. They are joined by The Conscious Advertising Network with its six manifestos covering a range of issues: from hate speech to children’s’ well-being and diversity. We need more active, high profile voices calling for change though.
If Jurgen Klopp can refuse to answer a question from a Sun journalist at a press conference, just imagine the power an advertiser with millions in their pocket wields. I was reminded today by a colleague that post Hillsborough, The Sun can still not be bought in any newsagent in Liverpool..perhaps the net should be cast wider! However, rather than start another new initiative, my rally cry would be to encourage marketers, at the very least, to get behind these meaningful initiatives and ask different questions of their agencies and media owners.
Those that feel more strongly should be reviewing their media investments. Those of us in the media industry CAN make a difference. It’s not like there aren’t alternatives to The Sun or The Mail to reach the same audiences. Social platforms are not immune in all of this either. Marketers and the media agency community must make a stand.
It seems indie agencies are up for making this change so why not others? At Control v Exposed, we have built tech to ensure that inappropriate content, clickbait and ad fraud is detected before we spend a pound of our clients’ money, rather than trouble-shoot later.
I’d encourage others to be as intentional about the decisions they make and for those who believe strongly to also speak out. What do you think?
Personalisation for profit | 1st Party Data led marketing | Digital ID | Clean Room | Retail Media | Digital Media | CTV | Loyalty | Ecommerce
4yVery tough and important subject, given the topic there is a level of irony in both the the post and me engaging. Whilst the Daily Mail/Sun are very thinly veiled as news outlets, you could argue some of the vitriol spewed via social media by "normal" people was worse than what was written in these articles. The argument then becomes how much these news outlets influence vs mirror popular opinion. What you cannot ignore is they too often pander to the basist elements of the general pop. This is just the latest(albeit horrific) example of where newspapers over egg on click bait (sensationalism) to generate traffic to then sell to brands. Brands pooling together to help set better standards is long overdue but, if they are not holding other mediums eg Facebook to the same standards its pointless? These social "publishers" are not only not getting on top of how their user base are behaving but, also responsible for the accelerating the need for "click bait". If the global alliance only looks to influence the news articles where at least there is on occasion newsworthy articles and ignores other mediums that are also complicit we will just end up with a deluge of misinformation and fake news?
Agency advisor + Leadership coach 🚀 | Marketing Week columnist ✏️ | Keynote speaker 🎤 | Podcast host 🔊 | Property Investor 🏠
4yGood post, Paul. While I’m certainly not absolving the media, I do think we get the media we deserve. The regulation route is riddled with complexities, as is the fact that it’s a buyer’s market. It’s much like doomed argument of getting agencies to join forces against ‘bad’ client pitch practice. Perhaps our tastes and what we choose to buy / click on is what will change how the media behaves most quickly. So I’d like to see more light shone on the grim methods behind the headlines. Maybe a stronger voice against this sick shit - like in Liverpool (and by Klopp) - will open more eyes. That might in turn accelerate change by encouraging the long tail of advertisers to join their braver colleagues by voting with their budgets. That would surely do more to change media behaviour than endlessly caveated and toothless regulation. That said, self regulation is obviously a nonsense.
Building Custom AI Solutions for Marketing to increase efficiency, improve campaign performance and save time & money
4y100% agree, advertising needs to take a long hard look at itself in this respect. But I think it needs to work in more ways than simply advertisers pulling spend from certain publishers. Yes, a lot of advertisers do need to be more careful (particularly in a programmatic world) where their ads appear. But, networks and exchanges must also do their part to ensure accurate, truthful information is being passed through bid requests/back to advertisers of where ads will/are appearing. Although the tabloids are big, obvious examples, there are many cases of individual "publishers" simply setting up a website, signing up to a network after only a cursory automated check of the content and using ads to both fund and then drive traffic to content similar to the tabloids. I remember it being a massive issue in the run up to Trump's election. Publishers then need to also look at some of the ads appearing on their sites, even some that are considered to have "high quality" inventory often also have a truckload of cheap sponsored links that either send users to the aforementioned poor, inappropriate content or contain misleading pictures/copy. Hopefully with the removal of third party cookies, the two issues will combine to create a much bigger focus on context - in terms of quality and performance for advertising, and wider considerations and responsibility.
Global eCommerce Director at Hotelbeds
4yAn excellent piece Paul. I feel incensed by the oft trotted out "in the public interest" excuse. Invariably, only a small proportion of the dross that is spewed out has an iota of what I´d term genuine public interest. Unfortunately though, significant chunks of the public would seem to be very, very, very interested. A base reaction, a bored scroll, the hint of titillation, we/they lazily lap up the drivel. It´s there so it´s consumed. I concur with your approach - curtail the advertising and the incentive to create the content is diminished.
Business Director at Mediahub UK
4yI feel that the primary role of the newspaper industry (be that in print or online) has shifted away from reporting the news and focuses more on making money. The desire to get more people clicking or buying a paper due to salacious headlines is a symptom of that - particularly in the online space where the same news article is available for free in many other places. From a planning point of view I’ve had several clients who have black listed sites such as the Daily Mail because of their editorial. From an online perspective, whilst sites such as the Mail have reasonably large audiences, it’s fairy straight forward and inexpensive to buy around them and reach the same audience. If the tide really is turning against such publications then brands will naturally veer away from them. I don’t think the government can be relied upon to enforce any restrictive measures (we all know how much the various parties rely on them for votes come election time) however brands themselves do have the ability to shift spend away from them with, I think, low impact on the effectiveness of their campaigns.