The IPA has formally demanded better standards from Google and Facebook – but is its latest weaponry locked and loaded, or has it just got a pea-shooter, wonders Dominic Mills
Mid-August, and just when things look dull, the IPA livens it all up last week by lining up its guns on the duopoly of Google and Facebook. This took the form of an open letter calling for the pair to up their game on brand safety, independent measurement and viewability.
My first reaction was: what took the IPA so long? After all, individual parts of the industry have been banging on about this for some time, even well before the arguments this spring about brand videos appearing on hate sites and the joint JICS initiative with ISBA in June.
But this was, I think, a churlish way to look at it. In some instances, the IPA can only really move at the pace of its slower members, it has to balance different views, and for some (i.e. the creative agencies) this would not be an issue of the first importance. So we shouldn’t under-estimate the significance of its action.
My second question was: why now? Here it begins to make sense. My understanding is that, for all the honeyed words from Google and Facebook since the brand safety issue put the duopoly on the spot and ISBA took up the cudgels on behalf of clients in March, there’s been a lot of foot dragging and no feeling of a coherent response.
As one senior industry figure told me: “We’ve engaged in dialogue for some time, but all we’re getting back is chaff and white noise.” In some cases too, phone calls on the issue aren’t even returned. This letter then, perhaps the most open indication of the industry’s frustration, might actually flush out some of the problems.
Unfortunately, the first response from Facebook – although prompt – seems to be just more chaff.
The letter is likely to get pushed over to California by Google and Facebook’s UK teams, but whether they can get a hearing over there is another matter”
Its statement said: “We take our commitment to advertisers seriously, and through continued investment and innovation we’re making progress, together with our partners in the industry.
“In the last few months we’ve announced an extra 3,000 content reviewers to nearly double our existing team, as well as new buying options and controls for advertisers that give choice and transparency over how and where ads appear on the platform. We have also updated our metrics to give more clarity and confidence about the insights we provide, including our work with 24 third-party measurement partners who can verify the value we drive for advertisers.”
I don’t know about you, but the moment I see the words “we take our commitment to (fill in gap as appropriate here) seriously”, I know that what’s coming is a load of blah. It doesn’t matter whether it’s airline passengers (BA), rail passengers (Southern), data hacks (Talk Talk), fair tax (Apple/Google/Facebook), the public sector (Grenfell/hospital trusts/care homes)…it’s the equivalent of an organisation pulling down the shutters.
For its part, Google has nothing official to say other than it is working with the IPA on standards and will continue to do so.
So, what force will the letter have? Is the IPA’s weaponry, to borrow from Donald Trump, “locked and loaded”? Or has it just got a pea-shooter?
The ultimate sanction, which is that IPA members suspend their business, is clearly not going to happen. At the very base, such concert action or collusion wouldn’t even be legal. But the cumulative actions of individual players such as P&G, media agencies and other advertisers suspending some of their spend – which is already happening anyway – might over time have some effect.
The next question then is do Facebook and Google care? First, business is going swimmingly and as long as the pair hoover up the cash, why should they? It is also true that a significant chunk of their business is with DR advertisers, for whom these issues are less relevant.
On the other hand, if the IPA initiative divides the pair and one of Google or Facebook falls into line, then it might get a competitive advantage and eventually pull the other in with it.
Second, is it in their cultural DNA to listen to outsiders…customers even…? The evidence isn’t promising. Most people feel Silicon Valley hubris is so powerful these organisations consider themselves above the law. Just watch the BBC2 series Secrets of Silicon Valley and you’ll see what I mean.
Third, the industry is dealing here with global behemoths, so why would they care about the little old UK? Why change their rules just for one market?
Certainly it is true that they are nowhere near under the same pressure in the US (P&G apart), where both the ANA (the advertiser association) and the 4As (the IPA equivalent) are too busy fighting each other over media transparency and production issues to pick up the baton on this. In the US, the situation is further complicated by the fact that media agencies are not principals, which places the onus on the ANA.
I get the sense, however, that in the UK at least there is some recognition on the part of senior duopoly executives – many of whom are deeply rooted in the UK ad industry – that their customers have a case and they are inclined to listen. And the UK is their second-biggest market, so there is a substantial amount of money on the table.
The IPA letter, therefore, is likely to get pushed over to California by Google and Facebook’s UK teams, but whether they can get a hearing over there is another matter.
As it stands, and on its own, the IPA letter does not move us forward. But I am told that, together with ISBA, it is moving towards a series of more concrete proposals on these vexed issues later this year.
So it is best to view the letter then as a flag waver, as a signal both of frustration and intent, such that the ground is prepared for a later go.
Or at least I think that’s the plan. Fingers crossed.
