The Real Cost of the Facebook Boycott

Chances are if you’re reading this article, you work in social media or marketing more broadly. You will therefore likely have seen news over recent weeks about the Facebook boycott which took place in July this year.

At a recent DMA Social Media meeting, the group discussed whether the boycott from global advertisers had been seen and felt outside of the marketing bubble – and questioned, would it make a difference in forcing platforms like Facebook to take more responsibility to curb hate speech?

Truth be told when the Facebook conversation started at the beginning of June in America, we were unsure how significant the #StopHateForProfit movement would be... alongside Coronavirus and the ongoing discussions around Black Lives Matters, it was difficult to predict its magnitude or impact.

But where big brands like Unilever and Starbucks first trod, other brands followed suit – initially most notably by bigger global brands with marketers keen to make a statement outside of the US and take their message onto a global stage.

Advertisers like Honda and Aviva joined forces to boycott Facebook in Europe – brands like Mars even reportedly extended the hiatus in social ad investment to include other platforms, including Twitter and Snapchat (WARC).

Press releases followed, with brands keen to publicise their actions and make a public statement – presumably to put pressure on the networks to act. Indeed, Zuckerberg called the boycott a "reputational" issue, saying it threatened only a "small per cent" of Facebook's revenue and predicting advertisers would return to the platform "soon enough," according to The Information.

Interestingly not every brand opted to make their message public, with some seemingly content to make it an internal statement and let the money (or therein lack of) do the talking.

Experiences within the Council seemed to have varied in regard to clients ‘going public’ but one thing remains a consistent certain – the need for the act to be seen as more than a PR message; not just being seen or expected to have a view, but acting because it’s a cause that a brand cares about. Social purpose is more important than ever and being authentic and behaving authentically is more important than ever.

Interestingly those brands who did not participate it would appear benefited from a quieter, less competitive newsfeeds – not just on Facebook – as non-participating brands still paid to get their content seen.

Is it right not to participate? Some businesses, cruelly punished by the impact of lockdown and coronavirus, are still in survival mode desperately clawing back revenues to keep their businesses afloat and their workforce on the payroll. For some businesses, it may be too costly to have an opinion or take a stand as others have done so publicly.

This is perhaps certainly true of smaller businesses who are largely considered to be the bulk of Facebook's income and cannot afford NOT to advertise… so it potentially won’t make the commercial dent on Facebook perhaps some were hoping for – in the short term at least.

It’s certainly a reputational issue Facebook cannot afford to ignore, and other social media platforms would be wise to sit up and take note. This collective action, even if only felt within the marketing industry and a few select trade publications, might still have a lasting impact.

Brands should continue to avoid tokenistic campaigns and causes – if you’re going to stick up for Black Lives Matter or rally to curb hate speech don’t just contain it to your marketing spend on Facebook Make sure it runs through the DNA of your brand and how your business operates to make a meaningful longer-term change.