7 ms·

I really question what the real purpose of this "boycott" was during a pandemic. I've worked in advertising for 12+ years. I can easily imagine a company (say,

I really question what the real purpose of this "boycott" was during a pandemic. I've worked in advertising for 12+ years. I can easily imagine a company (say, Pepsi), deciding to pause a campaign they were planning to do because they figure the public are not in the mood to see advertising like that. And having nothing in the pipeline to replace it. So a "boycott" to the public is really just "we don't have much to say right now" in private. Also, "we need to save a few dollars because our quarterly profits have gone down." I don't think it was ever any "moral" boycott. It was just an excuse to cut ad spending for a few weeks and avoid being tone deaf during a BLM protest movement.

tootahe45 6y ago
For a lot of these businesses relying on foot traffic, ads would be futile anyway during widespread lockdowns. So really just free point-grabbing. This whole thing would've been avoided if Mark grew a pair and permanently banned the first companies who did this from ever using FB services again. I really hope he bans media companies who are trying to extort FB right now, the antics would be dropped quickly.
- polyomino 6y ago
  That would be a terrible move. Nobody would want to work with a company that acts so childishly. It would also alienate all of the people who support the cause.
  - tootahe45 6y ago
    Facebook has not changed its policy with regards to hate speech as far as i'm aware, so these companies don't need to return to use FB services until it does. (Unless of course the protest was always meant as a 2 week gimmick at the expense of FB's reputation).
    - ss7pro 6y ago
      I hope those stupid compa ies would never come back to FB with their spending. Lack of blue chips on FB allowed SMBs to get cheaper ads on FB and their overall spending is bigger than blue chips so at the end FB benefited from this action. So those stupid companies are pu usher as their SMB competitors increases their market share!
      - vageli 6y ago
        > I hope those stupid compa ies would never come back to FB with their spending. Lack of blue chips on FB allowed SMBs to get cheaper ads on FB and their overall spending is bigger than blue chips so at the end FB benefited from this action. So those stupid companies are pu usher as their SMB competitors increases their market share! Overall spending is bigger than blue chips? I feel like that's a citation needed. I've worked for companies spending 1 million+ on twitter advertising channel alone, so I'm curious how SMBs could get anywhere near close that level of spend in one channel per month forget about across multiple.
        sukilot 6y ago
        There are a lot more SMBs than Fortune 500s.
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      It appears other companies are acting potentially childishly. That doesn't mean it's a good move for Facebook to act childishly.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Why ban them when you can ignore them at no cost and accept their money again in the future?
- elliekelly 6y ago
  If the decision is beyond your control then letting clients go graciously is good for business. They might be in the market for your services again soon.
darawk 6y ago
This is exactly right. It was a way to get free advertising from cutting your advertising budget.
- sharkweek 6y ago
  Two thoughts: One, I remember a study back when cigarette companies were told they couldn't advertise on television that all major tobacco brands loved this because it meant they didn't have to spend any money on these types of ads. I'm sure there are versions of this all over the place in most marketing strategies. Two, pardon my cynicism, but I'm sure companies model these things out and take action based on those models. No CEO is just like "yes, let's support a social cause." Randomly picking on a brand, but I'm sure Starbucks started flying a Pride Flag because it made sense to do so for the business.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    It probably depends on the industry and market. For cigarettes, they weren’t trying to make people aware of cigarettes, because everyone already knows what they are. The companies were simply fighting for market share, and were at a point where they had to advertise just to keep their market share. It was a prisoners dilemma, where the whole industry could be more profitable by cutting advertising, but there was always an incentive to ‘defect’ and advertise your product. The government banning the ads solved this problem for them.
    - sukilot 6y ago
      The government taxes cigarettes within a nickel of affordability, so it's not really the cigarette companies who profited from this.
      - thejynxed 6y ago
        You're correct, government in the USA and Australia for instance, is massively profit-taking via the taxes to the point that they are taking in more revenue per pack than the tobacco companies.
johnchristopher 6y ago
I wonder how that boycott was set up and effectively put in place: disabling facebook pixels ? suspend posting on fb pages ? fire community managers ? suspending contracts with ad companies that sell pepsi/others space on the net to advertise ?
- 1123581321 6y ago
  Just pausing spend (stopping campaigns in the ad manager. Typically an agency would be told to suspend the campaign and relevant creative (copywriting, art assets) budgets would be paused or diverted to support other media.
  - johnchristopher 6y ago
    I see, hard to believe it was not just a PR and budget move then.
adtechanon 6y ago
Throwaway account from an established HN person. I work with many of the top advertisers in the US. These are not simply PR positions that take advantage of lower marketing expenditures. Many of the top advertisers do not support Facebook’s current advertising and content policies. Would you as a savvy marketer turn off your top 1 or 2 channel instead of lower performing channels? Facebook is typically in the top for both branding and performance media. Wouldn’t the marketing teams save money and maintain healthy performance by shutting down other channels? Facebook has a closed marketplace that protects itself, and gives malevolent actors (certain advertisers) the power to manufacture misinformation at a global scale. I have first-hand seen other channels soak up the FB funds during this time. It has been interesting to see the diversification into media that historically was not a major investment, because it under performed when compared to FB.
- cheez 6y ago
  Sure.
- ballenf 6y ago
  I believe your account, but I still wonder whether the opposition to FB is more about it having the power to upset the status quo and how that is a threat to these mega brands.
- wolco 6y ago
  Is it the ad execs at company 1 & 2 calling the shots or is this a board level decision?
- scarface74 6y ago
  How can you actually tell which brand advertising channel works? From what I know about the CPG market, they historically couldn’t tell except via coupons in newspapers.
- cecja 6y ago
  For big brands social media advertising is just not that effective and for the agencies its a chore. Nobody likes it, nobody wants to do it and nobody sees a real effect on sales. For smaller brands it is an opportunity but if you have a market cap like coke or the exposure of nike there is nothing to gain, except some more numbers for your case study.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cm2012 6y ago
I'm also a FB advertiser. Here my thoughts on it: 1) Facebook's reach is unique. If you want to share a message that's important to you with groups of people you care about reaching in the world, there's no better way to reach them at scale. 2) Facebook has had a number of negative sounding news cycles in the past few years (Cambridge Analytica, etc.), and data shows that the average American hasn't changed their behavior based on them. 70% of all Americans and Canadians use Facebook or Instagram at least once a month, and 55% of all Americans and Canadians use it at least once per day. Facebook's monthly and daily user counts have only grown, including this last quarter. 3) Very few advertisers ended up cutting spend during the boycott. Many who did so wanted to cut ad spend in a COVID environment anyway. For instance, Unilever and Coca-Cola also paused Twitter ads, which has nothing to do with the boycott. 4) I myself believe that, at least in comparison to other companies like Google, Facebook does try to police hate speech, and it's a hard job.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wolco 6y ago
  1) Facebook is unique. But it is a costly way to reach a target group and usually the goal is to build other channels. Big brands are not looking to reach smaller targeted groups. 2) Daily users/monthly users is not really the stat worth tracking. That number was going to go up because of covid. I wonder about time spent on the site and time spent scrolling. That feels the important metric that has been dropping and tells a different story. 3) doesn't completely tell the story because if coke was cutting anyway that should show up 4) The differences on how each police hate speech doesn't really matter to anyone. The real reason is 5: 5) Facebook raised prices for everyone else.
  - nradov 6y ago
    I hardly saw ads for any big consumer brands on my Facebook feed even before the boycott. The vast majority of ads are from smaller companies. Not sure if my experience is typical?
baryphonic 6y ago
In my experience (not advertising), this is how most organizations operate. Even non-profit or government ones. If a firm is conspicuously not advertising, they'll get some organic press and maybe goodwill.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tootahe45 6y ago

For a lot of these businesses relying on foot traffic, ads would be futile anyway during widespread lockdowns. So really just free point-grabbing. This whole thing would've been avoided if Mark grew a pair and permanently banned the first companies who did this from ever using FB services again. I really hope he bans media companies who are trying to extort FB right now, the antics would be dropped quickly.

polyomino 6y ago
That would be a terrible move. Nobody would want to work with a company that acts so childishly. It would also alienate all of the people who support the cause.
- tootahe45 6y ago
  Facebook has not changed its policy with regards to hate speech as far as i'm aware, so these companies don't need to return to use FB services until it does. (Unless of course the protest was always meant as a 2 week gimmick at the expense of FB's reputation).
  - ss7pro 6y ago
    I hope those stupid compa ies would never come back to FB with their spending. Lack of blue chips on FB allowed SMBs to get cheaper ads on FB and their overall spending is bigger than blue chips so at the end FB benefited from this action. So those stupid companies are pu usher as their SMB competitors increases their market share!
    - vageli 6y ago
      > I hope those stupid compa ies would never come back to FB with their spending. Lack of blue chips on FB allowed SMBs to get cheaper ads on FB and their overall spending is bigger than blue chips so at the end FB benefited from this action. So those stupid companies are pu usher as their SMB competitors increases their market share! Overall spending is bigger than blue chips? I feel like that's a citation needed. I've worked for companies spending 1 million+ on twitter advertising channel alone, so I'm curious how SMBs could get anywhere near close that level of spend in one channel per month forget about across multiple.
      - sukilot 6y ago
        There are a lot more SMBs than Fortune 500s.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    It appears other companies are acting potentially childishly. That doesn't mean it's a good move for Facebook to act childishly.
ALittleLight 6y ago
Why ban them when you can ignore them at no cost and accept their money again in the future?
elliekelly 6y ago
If the decision is beyond your control then letting clients go graciously is good for business. They might be in the market for your services again soon.

darawk 6y ago

This is exactly right. It was a way to get free advertising from cutting your advertising budget.

sharkweek 6y ago
Two thoughts: One, I remember a study back when cigarette companies were told they couldn't advertise on television that all major tobacco brands loved this because it meant they didn't have to spend any money on these types of ads. I'm sure there are versions of this all over the place in most marketing strategies. Two, pardon my cynicism, but I'm sure companies model these things out and take action based on those models. No CEO is just like "yes, let's support a social cause." Randomly picking on a brand, but I'm sure Starbucks started flying a Pride Flag because it made sense to do so for the business.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  It probably depends on the industry and market. For cigarettes, they weren’t trying to make people aware of cigarettes, because everyone already knows what they are. The companies were simply fighting for market share, and were at a point where they had to advertise just to keep their market share. It was a prisoners dilemma, where the whole industry could be more profitable by cutting advertising, but there was always an incentive to ‘defect’ and advertise your product. The government banning the ads solved this problem for them.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    The government taxes cigarettes within a nickel of affordability, so it's not really the cigarette companies who profited from this.
    - thejynxed 6y ago
      You're correct, government in the USA and Australia for instance, is massively profit-taking via the taxes to the point that they are taking in more revenue per pack than the tobacco companies.

johnchristopher 6y ago

I wonder how that boycott was set up and effectively put in place: disabling facebook pixels ? suspend posting on fb pages ? fire community managers ? suspending contracts with ad companies that sell pepsi/others space on the net to advertise ?

1123581321 6y ago
Just pausing spend (stopping campaigns in the ad manager. Typically an agency would be told to suspend the campaign and relevant creative (copywriting, art assets) budgets would be paused or diverted to support other media.
- johnchristopher 6y ago
  I see, hard to believe it was not just a PR and budget move then.

adtechanon 6y ago

Throwaway account from an established HN person. I work with many of the top advertisers in the US. These are not simply PR positions that take advantage of lower marketing expenditures. Many of the top advertisers do not support Facebook’s current advertising and content policies. Would you as a savvy marketer turn off your top 1 or 2 channel instead of lower performing channels? Facebook is typically in the top for both branding and performance media. Wouldn’t the marketing teams save money and maintain healthy performance by shutting down other channels? Facebook has a closed marketplace that protects itself, and gives malevolent actors (certain advertisers) the power to manufacture misinformation at a global scale. I have first-hand seen other channels soak up the FB funds during this time. It has been interesting to see the diversification into media that historically was not a major investment, because it under performed when compared to FB.

cheez 6y ago
Sure.
ballenf 6y ago
I believe your account, but I still wonder whether the opposition to FB is more about it having the power to upset the status quo and how that is a threat to these mega brands.
wolco 6y ago
Is it the ad execs at company 1 & 2 calling the shots or is this a board level decision?
scarface74 6y ago
How can you actually tell which brand advertising channel works? From what I know about the CPG market, they historically couldn’t tell except via coupons in newspapers.
cecja 6y ago
For big brands social media advertising is just not that effective and for the agencies its a chore. Nobody likes it, nobody wants to do it and nobody sees a real effect on sales. For smaller brands it is an opportunity but if you have a market cap like coke or the exposure of nike there is nothing to gain, except some more numbers for your case study.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cm2012 6y ago

I'm also a FB advertiser. Here my thoughts on it: 1) Facebook's reach is unique. If you want to share a message that's important to you with groups of people you care about reaching in the world, there's no better way to reach them at scale. 2) Facebook has had a number of negative sounding news cycles in the past few years (Cambridge Analytica, etc.), and data shows that the average American hasn't changed their behavior based on them. 70% of all Americans and Canadians use Facebook or Instagram at least once a month, and 55% of all Americans and Canadians use it at least once per day. Facebook's monthly and daily user counts have only grown, including this last quarter. 3) Very few advertisers ended up cutting spend during the boycott. Many who did so wanted to cut ad spend in a COVID environment anyway. For instance, Unilever and Coca-Cola also paused Twitter ads, which has nothing to do with the boycott. 4) I myself believe that, at least in comparison to other companies like Google, Facebook does try to police hate speech, and it's a hard job.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wolco 6y ago
1) Facebook is unique. But it is a costly way to reach a target group and usually the goal is to build other channels. Big brands are not looking to reach smaller targeted groups. 2) Daily users/monthly users is not really the stat worth tracking. That number was going to go up because of covid. I wonder about time spent on the site and time spent scrolling. That feels the important metric that has been dropping and tells a different story. 3) doesn't completely tell the story because if coke was cutting anyway that should show up 4) The differences on how each police hate speech doesn't really matter to anyone. The real reason is 5: 5) Facebook raised prices for everyone else.
- nradov 6y ago
  I hardly saw ads for any big consumer brands on my Facebook feed even before the boycott. The vast majority of ads are from smaller companies. Not sure if my experience is typical?

baryphonic 6y ago

In my experience (not advertising), this is how most organizations operate. Even non-profit or government ones. If a firm is conspicuously not advertising, they'll get some organic press and maybe goodwill.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]