Lodi News-Sentinel

Facebook’s election role is likely to increase

- By David Pierson

Negative headlines. Congressio­nal inquiries. Corporate apologies. The heightenin­g scrutiny surroundin­g Facebook after it allowed Russian trolls and inflammato­ry political ads to spread on its network is the kind of thing companies would do anything to avoid.

But don’t expect it to harm the tech giant’s bottom line.

As the political world looks to apply the lessons of Donald Trump’s victory to future campaigns, one of the few clear conclusion­s is that Facebook played an outsized role in propelling the candidate to his improbable win.

The company’s ability to affordably target hyper-specific audiences with little to no transparen­cy gives it a distinct advantage over other forms of media, researcher­s and political operatives believe.

Political ads on Facebook have fueled controvers­y. They spread Russian propaganda and reportedly helped the Trump team suppress black support for Hillary Clinton and aided a conservati­ve political action committee in targeting swing voters with scaremonge­ring antirefuge­e ads.

Yet the backlash is unlikely to dissuade future campaigns from relying on Facebook’s advertisin­g platform.

Even the threat of new regulation governing the disclosure rules for political ads on social media can’t stunt the company’s stock price, which continues to reach new heights.

If anything, the controvers­ies appear to be functionin­g like a giant advertisem­ent for the effectiven­ess of Facebook’s political advertisin­g business.

“I don’t lose sleep over Facebook’s business. I lose sleep over the future of democracy,” said Siva Vaidhyanat­han, a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia and author of a book on Facebook out next year called “Anti-Social Media.”

Political advertisin­g represents a small percentage of Facebook’s booming $26.9 billion ad business, which accounted for nearly 15 percent of all the money spent on digital advertisin­g worldwide in 2016, according to EMarketer. But it’s growing rapidly.

After years of trepidatio­n, campaigns are adjusting to the fact that audiences are increasing­ly found online rather than via TV, radio or print.

Political spending on digital advertisin­g soared in the 2016 election cycle to $1.4 billion, according to Borrell Associates, a data tracking firm.

That’s nearly an 800 percent increase from the last presidenti­al election, when only $159 million was spent on digital advertisin­g, a category that encompasse­s search, display, email, video, social media and mobile.

Digital political spending is expected to rise to $1.9 billion in the 2018 election cycle and $2.8 billion in 2020, the firm said.

The main beneficiar­y of those increasing ad dollars probably will be Facebook. The social network took $4 out of every $5 spent on social media in the 2016 election cycle, said Kip Cassino, executive vice president at Borrell Associates.

“No one can brush off or minimize the impact of Facebook on the 2016 presidenti­al contest, both as a platform for advertisin­g and as the perfect laboratory for testing and honing messaging targeted to various voter blocs,” Cassino said.

The sea change was first evident with the spread of partisan news, conspiraci­es and hoaxes on Facebook during the campaign.

Then news emerged last month that Facebook had sold about $100,000 in ads to a Russian troll farm. The shadowy group, known as the Internet Research Agency, placed ads believed to have been seen on at least 10 million Facebook users’ news feeds.

The ads were aimed at inflaming divisive social issues such as race, gun control and gay rights to potentiall­y tip the scales in Trump’s favor.

Facebook has responded to the growing Russian scandal by cooperatin­g with congressio­nal committees and pledging more transparen­cy, including requiring buyers of political ads to disclose their identity and reveal other ads they’ve run. The company had previously argued against requiring disclaimer­s on political ads, saying it would be impractica­l — akin to placing disclosure­s on small items such as bumper stickers and pins.

Such disclosure­s could have sounded the alarm on Russian meddling earlier.

“I don’t want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy,” Zuckerberg said last month.

Facebook said it will introduce more transparen­cy in the coming months, though no details have emerged about how it will deal with so-called dark posts — ads like those bought by Russian operatives that have no link to a candidate or campaign. Instead, they’re designed to sensationa­lize wedge issues such as immigratio­n in hopes of racking up more “likes” and “shares,” giving their backers a larger audience and more bang for their buck.

 ?? TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE ?? Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has faced scrutiny over his social media company's advertisin­g.
TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has faced scrutiny over his social media company's advertisin­g.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States