Advertising boycott ‘needs critical mass’
New Zealand businesses might be too small in dollar terms to have an effect on Facebook with their advertising boycott but the sentiment could spread and hurt the social media giant.
Since the Christchurch mosque attacks on Friday left 50 people dead, the role of social media has come under increased scrutiny. The shooter livestreamed his attack and videos circulated on social media afterwards. Many New Zealand businesses said that had left them reassessing their use of channels such as Facebook for advertising.
Taranaki bank TSB said it was disappointed by the role social media played in the tragedy and thought it was inappropriate to continue to support the channel.
At Westpac bank, a spokesman said it had suspended advertising on social media networks and would engage with those companies about publishing harmful content.
Lotto said social media did not feel right. Now Ford NZ has suspended its Facebook ads, too.
Spark, Vodafone and 2degrees have written an ‘‘open letter’’ to Google, Facebook and Twitter calling for change.
Robert Aitken, head of the marketing department at the Otago University business school, said the amount of money spent by those businesses would be too small to make an impact on Facebook financially. But he said their influence would not be insignificant when it came to issues of morality, integrity and social responsibility.
‘‘This is the area that will most affect Facebook and the most important area for long-term brand survival of the businesses involved,’’ he said.
‘‘It is no longer about damage limitation in relation to money but to social approval, licence to operate, and this is where social conscience, as evident by business withdrawing their advertising, is necessary to develop, maintain or continue customer loyalty. Business is acting as a sort of ‘voice of the people’ and demonstrating its support, championing the social and moral consensus – an interesting move for business and one which we should watch to see how genuine and wide-reaching it is.
‘‘Will businesses look at where else they advertise and review accordingly? And, has Facebook had its day now that it is increasingly clear that it really is just a sophisticated advertising platform and pervasive way of delivering customers?’’
Technology commentator Peter Griffin said there had been boycotts in the past.
‘‘As recently as a few weeks ago, Spark pulled ads from YouTube because it was worried about people making inappropriate comments there on videos relating to children.’’
In 2017, YouTube suffered a loss of millions of dollars when large United States companies boycotted the platform because their ads appeared alongside Isis videos. But Griffin said neither instance had gained enough traction to hurt Facebook or YouTube.
But, he said, for social media companies ‘‘the bottom line is everything. They are almost totally reliant on advertising for their revenue and massive profits.’’
He said that, apart from regulatory pressure, the only way to have an effect on the firms was to limit their ability to run ads.
‘‘Any movement like this needs to get to critical mass before it can have any real tangible impact.’’
The dilemma for the companies removing advertising, he said, was that Google and Facebook were efficient ways to target customers.
‘‘They’ll always be tempted to jump back in.’’
Simon Cope, market lecturer at Massey University, agreed.
‘‘Businesses rely on social media to ‘listen’ and attempt to build ‘relationships’ with their existing and potential customers.’’ He said, for the ban to have effect, overseas businesses would have to join in, which he said was unlikely.