The ad industry’s “inertia” in cutting out the funding of online hate speech stems from seeing it as “the cost of doing business” with tech giants, industry insiders warn today.
Influencers and groups making “enormous financial gain” from online ad revenue are being bankrolled by the laissez-faire attitude of some of the UK’s biggest agencies, they explain – leaving their clients with no idea they are being “auto-enrolled” into buying ads placed next to racist vitriol.
Senior executives from major advertising agencies have come together to explain how their employers claim to be increasingly shackled by “thinning margins”, “cosy relationships” with big tech and the anti-DEI backlash from the Trump White House.
In a memo, released today, the industry insiders dismantle the narratives that agency bosses use to evade taking meaningful action
It says that “as an industry we have become more concerned with defending the belief that we have already done enough than confronting the uncomfortable reality that the problem persists — and that more must be done”.
The document adds: “Many of those who dedicate time every day to creating hateful content – whether they be racist, homophobic or misogynistic influencers – simply could not do so without us.”
Meanwhile, “risk-averse brand safety tools” are a “blunt instrument” having a “devastating impact”. The group warn that “by excluding entire websites or content containing particular keywords, rather than assessing the context in which those words appear, they cut o` advertising revenue to legitimate journalism and publishers serving marginalised communities – including those already
disproportionately targeted by hate.”
While many ad professionals might care about these issues as citizens, the memo states that “at the moments that count, we consistently choose to tell government that ‘we are already under too much pressure and there’s nothing we can do’”.
However, the insiders are clear the status quo is choice agencies are making, as they “invest heavily” in social media advertising which provides “cheap reach and impressive metrics to show to clients”.
It comes as new research from the Global Disinformation Index estimates that some YouTube creators are earning over $1million per year from hate speech, as YouTube takes home a similar-sized share through its revenue-sharing scheme.
The memo, titled “An Abdication of Responsibility: Why Advertising Firms Continue to Monetise Hate”, was coordinated by Inside Track, a non-profit which enables anonymous networks of senior executives in the world’s most powerful companies to expose the most material social and environmental impacts on their industries.
It also states:
- A lack of transparency in the digital ad supply chain has left many ad execs and clients “in the dark” about how material ad revenue is for online hate creators.
- The industry has failed to take accountability for its role advising clients and its influence over the tech platforms it spends on every day.
- Business models in advertising which are over-reliant on “cheap reach” from ads have led to less control on where they are placed, meaning more spend “slips through” to hate groups.
- The UK’s retreat into silence since X Corp brought a US court case against the industry’s overarching brand safety initiative is largely self-imposed by those who “never prioritised” the issue, as there were no long-term legal ramifications.
The group is urging the UK government to reject industry pronouncements that it is already doing all it can and instead listen to “industry experts beyond trade body lobbyists”. Clients are called on to “demand more clarity” and stop accepting brand safety failures as a “one-o` mistake”.
Investors are asked to hold agencies accountable for the “ethical failure” being shown. The insiders explain how the industry leans on a set of narratives to avoid having to take action. They state agencies don’t have full sight of the ad supply chain, that hate content is a job for the tech platforms to fix, and that legal risk since the closure of GARM – the industry’s main brand safety alliance – makes it too risky to get involved. They acknowledge there is “an element of truth” in these narratives but they are used as excuses for inaction.
They say industry is telling “colleagues, investors and clients… that it is too complex, risky or expensive to do anything other than accept that financing racist, misogynistic and hateful content is inevitable”.
Nisreen Shahin, Director at Inside Track says: “For years the advertising industry has told government and clients that funding hate is either unavoidable, under control or something they have no influence upon – this memo shows all three are inaccurate. The insiders reveal that decisions about how media budgets are spent are being overwhelmingly driven by the industry’s relationship with big tech and its desire to protect margins, rather than a commitment to safeguard its clients and communities.”
Cindy Gallop, advertising giant and CEO & Founder of MakeLoveNotPorn says: “Our industry is the business model for the internet. And yet we have consistently failed to leverage our financial power to demand that ‘brand safety’ mean just that – brands keeping consumers safe through that financial power. It’s time for the industry to step up and change that, because when we set our own terms for what we will and won’t pay for, we don’t just keep our consumers safe, we ensure a better future for humanity.”
Dr Karen Middleton, Associate Professor of Responsible Advertising said: “Without stronger regulation, brands will continue to fund online hate without even knowing it. This is a call from within the advertising industry for government to act – and bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the digital advertising supply chain.”
To read the full statement, visit: www.insidetrack.org.uk/releases/adhate