GARM vs X: A case of good cause, bad execution

The announcement last week, by Stephan Loerke, CEO of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), that they are closing The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) just days after being names in an antitrust lawsuit bought by the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) is a prime example of the right intentions with the wrong execution.

And is there a better way to bring about responsible media with the support of advertisers? Yes, advertisers have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders and their customers, but that does not give them the right to flout one of the more significant principles protecting our capitalist economic system - the anti-cartel laws common in most democratic capitalist societies. 

We have antitrust and competition laws for a reason: to protect and maintain the health of the economy by forbidding dominant players, or cartels, from unreasonably restraining trade either for their own gain, to the detriment of others, or both. Be it price fixing in a category or inhibiting competition, this fundamental protection ensures robust competition and a healthy economy.

In this case, some will try to argue that either GARM was not acting to restrict trade, or that even if it was acting as a cartel, the means was justified by an ethical outcome. Let’s take a closer look.

GARM was formed by the WFA after the mass terrorist shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand. The purpose was to work with the industry to tackle the monetising of illegal and harmful content with advertising. A worthy and important endeavour.

However, when framed as a collective of major advertisers agreeing to no longer invest their advertising budget with a particular media provider, it is easy for critics (read: Elon Musk) to frame this as a conspiracy to restrict trade for that media provider. And that is cartel behaviour.

But is there a better solution for reducing the advertising support of illegal and harmful content on the internet? Well, there would be few advertisers who would happily choose to have their ads running around racist, misogynistic, hateful, violent content. Not just for the reputational damage, but for the growing research evidence of the impact on advertising effectiveness. This is why brand safety continues to be a major issue.

So, advertisers rightly turn to their media agencies to make sure they are not supporting this type of content by placing their ads and their advertising dollars in these types of environments. This is not a simple matter for the agency. While the agency wants to heed the advertisers wishes, the fact is the agency is rarely paid what it would cost to do this properly, even if they could.

Remember we are not talking about a few hundred ad placements in a known environment, but millions of ad placements in millions of web pages and mobile apps and more. This requires technology to automate and deliver the ad in milliseconds millions of times an hour.

So, the agency either contracts a brand safety partner or has their client do so, in order to have them take on the responsibility of providing brand safety. These are companies such as IAS and Double Verify. And yes, Double Verify is the same company that had to admit they had given Twitter/X a brand safety ranking of 99.99%.

And what of the social media platforms themselves? Well, given that they are considered ‘carriers’ of information (much like a telecommunications company) and not a media, then they have no responsibility for the content that appears there. This means these billion-dollar advertising machines have no legal obligation to moderate harmful and illegal content and their efforts to do so are largely undertaken to appease advertisers, and perhaps keep government legislators at bay.

Let’s be clear. Yes, X, especially after Elon Musk’s acquisition, is now considered by many to be a dumpster fire in relation to brand safety. But are any of the other social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram or YouTube, truly and completely safe for advertisers?

The recent racist riots in the UK were reported to be fuelled by misinformation and hate spready by X, TikTok and Signal. But they were also supported by sensationalism in some of the mainstream media, which eagerly amplified the social heat in an already explosive environment. Therefore, for marketers finding a truly brand safe environment is more complex than it seems.

When you consider the complexity, difficulty and the cost involved in keeping a brand safe in the current media environment, it is perhaps understandable that a “coalition of the willing” seemed like a good idea at the time. And yes, it could help address the problem of advertisers supporting illegal and harmful online content, more effectively than the current practices. But just make sure it neither looks like a cartel mob out for blood. The issue of brand safety is much broader and complicated than that.

Darren Woolley is the founder and global CEO of Trinity P3. He writes a monthly column Woolley Marketing on Campaign Asia-Pacific.