
Unilever threatens to pull its ads from Facebook and Google over 'toxic content' - CodeSheikh
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-unilever-ads-google-facebook-20180212-story.html
======
niftich
Top advertiser Procter & Gamble, competitor to Unilever and likewise an owner
of many distinct brands, has been very vocal about the sorry state of digital
advertising [1], threatening to drastically cut spending [2] on ad networks
that made it difficult to gauge ROI.

When in 2017 they cut spending on Facebook [2], they noticed no corresponding
drop in sales, leading them to conclude that the spending they cut was
probably ineffective to begin with [3][4].

[1] [http://adage.com/article/media/p-g-s-pritchard-calls-
digital...](http://adage.com/article/media/p-g-s-pritchard-calls-digital-grow-
up-new-rules/307742/) [2] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-to-scale-back-
targeted-face...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-to-scale-back-targeted-
facebook-ads-1470760949) [3] [https://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2017/07/28/pg-
cuts-100m-in-d...](https://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2017/07/28/pg-cuts-100m-in-
digital-adspend-sees-no-business-impact/) [4]
[https://wolfstreet.com/2017/07/28/procter-gamble-slashed-
dig...](https://wolfstreet.com/2017/07/28/procter-gamble-slashed-digital-ad-
spending-what-happened-next/)

~~~
CaptSpify
I always hear about how online advertising has a lot of data to show how
effective it is. I've always been skeptical of that, but I have no evidence
either way. This seems to show that it wasn't working for this company.

I really wonder how many companies are actually getting anything for their
money.

Does anyone know of any data either way?

~~~
mediaman
When people say ads are ROI trackable, they are referring to ads that have
specific monetizable actions, such as buying a product. There's definitely
some advantage there.

However, most big ad spenders engage in "brand" advertising, where the goal is
building brand recognition to influence decisions at the future point of
purchase decision rather than driving a purchase decision at the point of
viewing the ad. I don't see what measurement advantage an online ad brings for
this type of advertising, and I see many reasons why it would be inferior to,
for example, TV, which can more fully capture a viewer's engagement than a
side banner ad.

~~~
mozumder
And the internet is probably the worst outlet for brand-building.

Why would Calvin Klein place their beautiful ad with Kate Moss next to photos
of your right-wing friend's AK-47 collection and videos of his deer field
dressing skills?

~~~
lmm
> Why would Calvin Klein place their beautiful ad with Kate Moss next to
> photos of your right-wing friend's AK-47 collection and videos of his deer
> field dressing skills?

Because they want to reinforce the notion that wearing Calvin Klein will make
you strong and manly and help you attract beautiful women? I'm sure your
general point makes sense but I'm really not seeing your example.

~~~
bedhead
Because that's where you spend your time. The advertisers are ultimately going
to go where consumers' attention is...they don't have much of a choice.

------
mehrdadn
> Last year, Unilever spent nearly $9.5 billion marketing its brands,
> including Dove, Lipton, Axe and Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

Holy cow, Ben & Jerry's ice cream, Dove soap, Lipton tea, and Axe fragrance
are all brands owned by the same company?!

~~~
anigbrowl
There is far less competition than it appears, which is why brands are so
important for maintaining the fictional appearance of it. This is why some of
the left say "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" = while it's a
crappy slogan, the reality is that many well-meaning consumers who try to vote
with their wallets are just picking 'nicer' brands but still giving their
money to the same places, and their buying decisions have far more influence
on the way goods and services are _marketed_ than the way they are _produced_.

Now, in some places you can absolutely vote with your dollars, buying locally
produced food and keeping the money circulating within your community and so
forth. But that's also a bit of a luxury choice - you're willing to pay a bit
more, and have the know-how to figure out the difference between a genuine
small business that's doing right by its employees/the environment/whatever
you care about, and a hip brand that is associated with those values but
actually yet another front for a large corporate concern. Many people don't
have those choices available (their only buying options maybe through
superstores like Walmart or Dollar Tree), or lack the insight to see through
the multiple layers of marketing and the economic pros and cons of our complex
business infrastructure.

Unilever and other big conglomerates do actually put their logo on the
products so if you pay careful attention you can see that information just by
inspecting the packaging at the supermarket, but to most people that's just
another certification stamp.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> the reality is that many well-meaning consumers who try to vote with their
> wallets are just picking 'nicer' brands but still giving their money to the
> same places

Exactly. I can't think of a better example of this than Dove branding (love-
your-body-in-any-shape-or-size feminism) compared to Axe (our deodorant will
make hot chicks love you).

~~~
fjsolwmv
Dove is for women. Axe is for men.

~~~
fenwick67
Ironically there are "Axe for Women" and "Dove Men" products.

------
Laforet
Have we finally hit the Minski Moment of online advertising predicted[0]
several years back? I really doubt that corporations would care much about
what is going on with these platforms as long as their ads yield steady
returns. However if this wasn't the case then things will get ugly fast.

[0]:[http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#fatads](http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#fatads)

P.S. My own view of the whole YouTube adpocalypse thing is that it had little
to do with controversial content but more to do with how ineffective those ad
placements had been overall. Is today's media landscape so messed up that
nobody is able to monetise properly?

~~~
bloaf
I am willing to bet that companies have a reasonably good handle on the
returns from their advertising spending.

I suspect they have no better than guesses as to why those returns change over
time, or what might improve the returns. That brief "ad-blockers are immoral"
campaign was probably the result of a few advertising committees deciding that
some downward trend was caused by ad-blocking. This is more of the same.

The companies are never going to come out and say "we're not making good
enough ads," they're going to blame the platforms they're advertising on. That
will put pressure on the platforms to lower prices, and in this case, serve as
a kind of corporate virtue signalling by pretending to be concerned about
social issues.

~~~
Laforet
Indeed, though I am worried that advertisers and platforms will take a long
time to find equilibrium again (and minor players may be priced out of the
market).

When the first ad exodus from YouTube happened, a lot of us thought that it
would take them about 6 months to renegotiate and things would be back to
normal. Well, it did not happen and we have only seen more exits since.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
The company behind the Axe ads is complaining about sexism? The whole Axe ad
campaign is about objectifying women to sell stuff to young men.

~~~
Steeeve
The company behind the Axe ads is also the company behind Dove advertising.
Different brands, different markets.

Complaining about facebook is a way to get free advertising for all of it.

~~~
beedogs
They spent about 10 billion dollars on advertising last year; I don't think
their angle here is "free advertising". Stop being so cynical.

------
ryanwaggoner
Story title is not accurate. Actual headline is:

 _Giant advertiser Unilever threatens to pull its ads from Facebook and Google
over 'toxic content'_

They haven't committed to it yet, they're in talks with Facebook, Google, etc.

Also, their entire digital ad budget is $2.4B, but not all that went to
Facebook and Google, which the title implies. Probably majority did, as they
make up like 65% of the digital ad market, but not all.

~~~
bloaf
Big companies ask themselves "how can we lower our advertising prices?" and
come up with the idea of claiming that their ad-buying decisions hinge on
aspects of the advertising platform that will be very expensive to fix. In
addition, they'll look social conscious for having the same complaints that
their target audience does.

~~~
robryan
Yeah, they have nowhere else to take this ad spend. They can't risk being left
behind by getting rid of digital advertising.

------
gypsy_boots
I find it hard to believe that Unilever really ‘cares’ about any of these
issues so I’m chalking this up to virtue signaling. Really just seems like
posturing more than anything

~~~
revelation
They are complaining about "toxic content directed at children". We are
talking about the worlds biggest _ice cream_ manufacturer, they own brands
like Lipton who make billions from sugar water with ads like these Muppet
animations targeted at children gulping it straight from the bottle:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8n-BF5lrnQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8n-BF5lrnQ)

Once those kids are fat teenagers, they own Axe of course, infamous peddlers
of archaic gender role pushing crap like this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPJjgIfRkI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPJjgIfRkI)

So yeah, the first step on making responsible ads for the internet is banning
these particular vermins at Unilever.

------
cs702
Right now, there are three highly negative Facebook articles on the front page
of HN, simultaneously:

* this article, about Unilever pulling ads from Facebook and Google

* an article about Facebook losing 2.8 million US users under 25 last year: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16360408](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16360408)

* an article about German courts ruling that Facebook's use of personal data is illegal: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16361614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16361614)

The way people on HN feel about any technology today is how the rest of the
world will feel about it tomorrow.[a]

This does _not_ bode well for Facebook.

[a] Typical example:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html)

~~~
soared
I'd say that's undoubtedly not true. Hn loves open source, locally hosting
software, customizable software, etc. The general public doesn't even know
what open source is, prefer web apps that just work, and prefer OS X/windows
to Linux.

Hn doesn't predict market desires at all, its just a smaller subset of the
same market.

~~~
paulddraper
Is 2018 the Year of the Linux Desktop?

------
Erik816
And who will be deciding what is "toxic"? Corporate pressure to make companies
who already lean towards a political monoculture even more inclined to silence
dissenting views is really not encouraging if you believe that discovering the
truth requires exposing yourself to a broad range of ideas.

~~~
consumer451
"pull its ads from social sites such as Facebook and YouTube if the tech
companies don't do more to minimize divisive content on their platforms."

Can the divisive part also apply to any cable news networks guilty of
divisiveness?

~~~
cat199
> Can the divisive part also apply to any cable news networks guilty of
> divisiveness?

no, because these are already in the pocket..

------
yipbub
Not that the literal toxic dump of mercury they left behind in my hometown
that lead to generations of deformity for people who lived nearby had much
impact on their image.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodaikanal_mercury_poisoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodaikanal_mercury_poisoning)

------
tyingq
This can't be great for Google. I suspect a large part of their margin is
advertisers that assume their investment is paying off somehow. Should
encourage some actual investigation of ROI in the space.

------
ggg9990
Makes solid business sense. If you are doing generic brand advertising you
want positive associations with your brand. Unilever pays millions of dollars
to celebrities just to be associated with them. After all that you don’t want
to show your million dollar ad next to an article about how Hillary Clinton
ate a baby in 2004.

------
userbinator
Good, the world could do with less advertising. At least we now know what the
"toxic content" is good for --- much like rat poison. ;)

------
notacoward
Considering Unilever's own mis-steps in well known territory, they seem pretty
intolerant of others' struggles with the less known.

------
zapita
This is excellent. Hopefully other mainstream brands will follow suit. Once
this issue hurts Google and Facebook enough that analysts start asking about
it at earnings calls, we'll start to see some change.

The only other avenue I see for meaningful change is proper enforcement of
anti-trust laws, but the odds of that happening inthe current administration
are probably zero.

~~~
ralusek
How is it excellent? For one, the standard by which content is determined to
be toxic is based off of basically nothing. Take for example The Rubin Report
on YouTube, which is constantly demonetized for simply facilitating
discussions between intellectuals from across the political spectrum. Ben
Shapiro, an orthodox Jew who is an outspoken opponent of racism and the alt-
right, was accused of white supremacy by these same groups claiming toxicity.
Advertisers determining what is and is not morally toxic by whatever standards
are currently being employed is not exactly a step in the right direction.

Unilever exists at upper echelons of a free market that even most libertarians
would begin asking for a semblance of regulations. To think that this is an
attempt at anything other than capitalizing off of social trends in order to
lower advertising costs or simply to cultivate easy social good will would be
foolish.

~~~
renlo
Although I agree with your message, how is Ben Shapiro an 'opponent of [...]
the alt-right'?

~~~
pukerz
Because in online circles, the 'alt-right' has basically become synonymous
with white nationalism, advocacy for an ethnostate and/or belief in a Jewish
conspiracy.

Ben Shapiro is in opposition to those views.

------
sureaboutthis
I have not read the article yet but it looks like advertisers are starting to
do what online "news" sources used to do back when news was trustworthy.
Vetting of content by educated, professional editors.

When I worked in radio and TV, years ago, small stations that couldn't afford
a news department would just rip news copy off the teletype machine from UPI
and AP and read that. Thus the term "rip and readers" as a derogatory term for
a bad news man or department. Something you see on virtually every TV station
now except with video.

------
oflannabhra
Ben Thompson, writing at Stratechery[1][2], has some good analysis of the CPG
business model. One insight he highlights is that the entire CPG business
model is tightly coupled to the retail business model: that is, consumer
buying decisions used to happen at a retail location, meaning that brand
awareness, loyalty, and product placement within the retail location were
paramount.

The entire structure of CPG companies is an organic outgrowth of a) retail's
constrained distribution and b) old-media advertising (radio, tv, etc).

It makes sense, then that digital advertising does not deliver ROI on CPGs.
E-commerce and digital advertising break all of the constraints above:
consumers no longer have a single point-of-decision for what they buy, and
because of that, digital advertisements can directly track their effectiveness
(and ROI for advertisers) through immediate conversions. CPGs can somewhat
take advantage of that new opportunity, but they are built for the post-war
era of consumer behavior and advertising.

[1] - [https://stratechery.com/2016/dollar-shave-club-and-the-
disru...](https://stratechery.com/2016/dollar-shave-club-and-the-disruption-
of-everything/) [2] - [https://stratechery.com/2014/technology-changing-world-
pg-ed...](https://stratechery.com/2014/technology-changing-world-pg-edition/)

------
dalbasal
When Google AdWords was starting out, there was a famous line about "can't
sell coke on Facebook." It's still true. AdWords worked for DIY ebooks,
lawyers, dentists, electricians, eBay, accounting software, night clubs... It
never really worked for coke.

Not sure that Unilever (dish soap and other supermarket consumables should
advertise on FB.

I really hope fb (also Google properties like YouTube) don't try to PG their
content further. The problem is spam and garbage, not breasts and politics.

------
beedogs
Good. The only thing Facebook listens to is money.

I'll laugh when the alt-right tries to boycott Unilever, though. Enough big
companies do this, and they'll all starve to death. :)

------
walshemj
You mean they thought that they could use programmatic add buying to reduce
the cost (and make people redundant) - without understanding what they where
buying and have a good way of monitoring.

Also they should have taken greater interest in the agency they used to do the
buying rather than just handing the PPC budget to the Marketing directors mate
who he plays golf with.

Its not all FB and Googles fault there is a lot of ass covering going on here.

------
vectorEQ
most of the anti fake news brigde is only aimed at anti russian fake news end
of the day xD.... the problem is that people still these days beleive any
random shite they read on the news or internet without thinking and
researching for themselves. learn people critical reading and thinking instead
of trying to police the interwebz :s

"Fake news, racism, sexism, terrorists spreading messages of hate, toxic
content directed at children — parts of the internet we have ended up with is
a million miles from where we thought it would take us," <\-- really ,where
did u think anonymous free speach would lead? Happy clappy love land? someone
misunderstands the human condition. the world is in a shit state and so this
reflects to the internet, if yu don't shield people from the real world by
living in some kind of bubble they won't be so 'influenced' by the things they
read on the internet because they will better understand it.

~~~
jonathanstrange
You sound cynical without any need for it.

The hatred and fake news comes from small but very radical and vocal
minorities. The vast majority of people is quite sensible and does not like
this a bit, that's one of the reasons for a certain online fatigue and why
people are so annoyed with many unmoderated forums nowadays. For example, I
personally came to HN from Slashdot, which has become unbearably toxic within
certain topics, even though they have tried to adjust their moderation
attribution algorithms to compensate against the haters.

The same reality distortion was already at place back on Usenet, though. It's
a simple fact of life that certain crackpots and people with an agenda have
way more time at hand than people with a real life.

So we used killfiles. But apart from such drastic private solutions,
moderation is the right way to go. In my view Unilever's pressure on Google
and FB is quite welcome.

------
duxup
They sort of talk around dealing with the content, along some other super
vague ideas about platforms that "make a positive contribution to society" but
really this seems to be more about keeping their ads away from that content.

I'm not sure it really addresses the content itself, everyone else's adds will
just fill that gap.

~~~
534b44a
Advertisers want more targeting control on which exact content their ads are
displayed on. Why doesn't facebook grant them the ability to run callbacks
based on that data so they can effectively moderate the demonetization
themselves?

------
snarfy
> that it will partner only with digital networks that pledge to use an
> industry standard for ad metrics and improve consumer ad experiences.

Whatever standard this ends up being, it needs to guarantee you cannot get
drive-by malware, or the ad blocker is staying on and the arms race will
continue indefinitely.

------
fishcolorbrick
I guess I get it - but how do you measure when the toxicity level falls low
enough?

What is the LD50 of a social network?

~~~
bfrog
Since its entirely user provided, I don't think its going to ever be.

~~~
gervase
Does this imply that user-provided content is fundamentally incompatible with
an ad-funded model?

There seems to be massive inertia on both sides: advertisers don't want to be
placed next to user-provided content, and users want to pay for content via ad
views. I wonder which is easier to change?

------
lgleason
So two things here. First, you have the fact that these types of products are
not easy to track ROI with. It's not like a click through ad where it is easy
to see a direct conversion from a click to a purchase. The other issue has to
do with privacy and pending regulation. More regulation and a drive towards
privacy will mean less data, less data means less targeted direct measurement.
Any way you look at this, it sounds like things are going to get interesting.

------
mixmastamyk
Didn’t FB just dial down it’s toxicity quite a bit?

~~~
beedogs
I've seen no evidence of this having been done.

~~~
mixmastamyk
I noticed a big drop in shared memes in late January, though they have inched
back up when I looked today.

------
rch
Honestly, no more ads for Unilever brands sounds like a solid improvement.
What do I have to post to get rid of the rest of them?

------
sus_007
Here's a recent interview by Recode with Facebook's head of news partnerships
& News Feed where they addressed this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-
MIj5vEjU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-MIj5vEjU)

------
ThomPete
Defining what is toxic besides the most obvious content seems to be an almost
impossible task.

------
xstartup
It seems these companies are failing to compete with niche product companies
in online space. Failure to shove ads down consumers' throat by leverage their
overall net ad spend on the ad network regardless of customers' engagement.

------
kvhdude
Unilever worried about sexism? have they viewed ads for ax body spray?

~~~
fjsolwmv
Axe isn't sexist; it is selling a certain fantasy to people who want that
fantasy. It isn't hurting or insulting any sex/gender.

------
mtgx
Seems like this will be a controversial comment here, but why should the
advertisers get to dictate the content?

Do we want Unilever to decide what we see on TV, too (such as political
opinions, etc) ?

~~~
astura
Seriously? They most certainly already do.

Which is why stuff like nudity and swearing is almost never shown on basic
cable (advertising sponsored) but is shown on premium channels such as HBO
which don't rely as much on advertising. Then every couple years we have
people who get fired from TV or have their shows cancelled after advertisers
pull out due to some controversy surrounding them.

Soap operas got their name by originally being sponsored by soap companies.

Then there's the advertisers that suspended YouTube ads after Elsagate, which
prompted YouTube to clean up and ban certain content and channels, including
one of it's top 100 channels Toy Freaks.

And, yes, some political opinions are simply bad business, which is why we
don't see them on TV.

This isn't new, this has been the way the world works since the beginning of
humanity.

------
lopmotr
I guess the "disturbing content that exploits children" is those "5 supermans
racing bikes" type videos. But how is "disturbing" a problem? That means the
adults watching are confused or afraid of some unknown. But does it do any
harm to children? It sounds way too similar to the old fights against violence
in videogames and swear words in music, or even color TV. I think when people
become parents they go hunting for things they worry might disturb their child
and want to censor the whole world just in case.

------
flylib
I call BS, they will go where consumers are

------
chewz
Looks like Facebook is the new Theranos.

------
cooervo
> "Fake news, racism, sexism, terrorists spreading messages of hate, toxic
> content directed at children — parts of the internet we have ended up with
> is a million miles from where we thought it would take us,"

Sad but true. Also add reddit in its vocal, annoying, pro-Trump minority.

------
jtwebman
Nice cheaper ads for me then :)

------
anorphirith
go ahead, please

------
kilolima
Good riddance. We don't need the advertising companies to regulate free speech
on the internet.

------
ihsw2
The chasm deepens between progressive supremacist propagandists and reality. I
don't think these ivory tower elitists fully grasp how offensive their
ideology is.

One can only hope they return to ad policies that eschew social constructivism
for plain advertisements displaying the utility of their products, but I won't
hold my breath.

~~~
mywittyname
Every company aspires to have a lifestyle brand.

