“A pervasive myth”: Why advertisers and media agencies need to rethink ‘brand suitability’
Addled thinking around “brand suitability” has led some advertisers and their agencies to avoid placing ads in news. It isn’t based on facts, and evidence strongly contradicts any suggestion that brands suffer from being placed in news content. What’s worse, evidence also shows that advertisers are damaging their brands – and their growth prospects – by avoiding news.
GroupM’s outgoing CEO recently told US senators that the group only allocates 1.28 per cent of spend to online news sites. His explanation: “brands prefer to avoid” news, which he characterised as “content related to war, scandal and political division”. He claimed advertisers prefer alternatives like “sports and entertainment”.
To be honest, I’m glad he made those comments, because “brand suitability” thinking regarding news has spiralled out of control across the media world. It’s damaging brand growth and pushing hard won budgets into channels that may be far less suitable and far less effective. So, it’s something we need to address and a debate we need to have.
Blunt and unsubstantiated
For those unfamiliar with the term, “brand suitability” is about protecting and developing a brand by choosing suitable content and avoiding unsuitable content to advertise or associate it with. To avoid content, advertisers build media exclusion lists of apps, sites, specific topics and keywords.
What seems to be occurring, as reflected by the CEO’s comments, is that some agencies and advertisers are placing all news websites on their exclusion lists.
This seems based on the assumption that any negative or controversial themes in news content will somehow be transferred to the advertised brand, impacting perception.
For an industry that prides itself on data-backed decision making, this seems a very unsubstantiated approach.
As far as I know, there is no data to support this assumption. In fact, the data that does exist tells a completely opposite story.
May 2024 research by NAZDAQ-listed marketing company Stagwell, involving 50,000 adults, shows no negative impact from advertising in ‘hard news’.
The study found placing ads next to stories about conflict, inflation or crime (‘hard news’) had no discernible difference on purchase intent, favourability or brand perception compared to placing ads next to sport or entertainment (‘soft news’).
Across eight key brand metrics, including among others ‘purchase intent’, ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘right values’ the average perception score difference between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ news was an insignificant 1.1 per cent.
The lack of discernible difference between ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ news even rang true at the demographic level. For instance, among Gen Z, the average purchase intent for brands whose ads were placed next to articles on the Middle East, Crime, Inflation (‘hard’) and Sport (‘soft’) were all within 4 per cent. Among mums, the average purchase intent for brands whose ads were placed next to articles on the inflation (‘hard’) and business (‘soft’) was equal at 70 per cent.
So, it seems the thinking that is causing advertisers to avoid news is entirely flawed.
Self-sabotage
What’s worse, this thinking is doing damage to brands and society more broadly.
First society. News publishers rely on advertising dollars to do what they do. The more advertisers channel their media budgets away from news, the harder it will be for publishers to hold power to account and balance the tide of misinformation that’s out there.
According to the research, brands that advertised on news platforms from 2018-2022 had an 88 per cent higher profit growth compared to those that did not.
This makes sense given multiple Australian studies have shown that news media’s high trust and engagement attributes are passed on to advertising within it, boosting brand recall and effectiveness.
So not only are some advertisers avoiding news based on a myth, they are also significantly limiting the effectiveness of their campaigns.
The irony is that brand suitability actions seem reserved for news, despite everyone knowing that social media platforms hold rivers of harmful content and misinformation that will actually hurt a brand. (Not to mention the percentage of marketers’ budgets that is being diverted to low quality made for advertising sites, approximately a quarter of all open web ad dollars, according to latest ANA research.)
A study by Integral Ad Science showed almost 70 per cent of Australians are unlikely to purchase a product or service advertised next to unsafe content. The report also warned of negative trust impacts for brands due to the growth of fake news on social media platforms, and inappropriate ad placements.
So, the question must be asked, why are brands avoiding content that reveals or exposes harmful or controversial events but aren’t so concerned about advertising next to harmful or controversial content?
In the interest of their brands, the marketing and media communities must reassess their thinking and practices around brand suitability – and take a data-driven approach based on accurate data.
I call on the industry to look closely at the facts and invest more in news, not less.
About ThinkNewsBrands
ThinkNewsBrands, the industry body for news media, is responsible for ensuring accurate and representative measurement of news audiences across both print and digital written news mediums. The organisation’s shareholders are Nine, News Corp Australia and Seven West Media’s West Australian newspapers.
Media Enquiries
Vanessa Lyons
vlyons@thinknewsbrands.com.au
0474 844 420
Find out more: thinknewsbrands.com.au
