The agency and advertiser investment paradox: They trust news, until they don’t

Opinion

How can news media be both trusted and disposable? The answer is uncomfortable, says the chair of The News Alliance. Trust is being acknowledged rhetorically but ignored commercially.

There is a glaring contradiction at the heart of today’s media planning. Agencies and advertisers insist they trust news media, but then leave it out of their plans.

Trust, we are told, is the primary reason for choosing news environments. News is described as reputable, regulated, and authoritative. Yet in the same breath, “lack of trust” and “brand safety concerns” are cited as key reasons for excluding it. This is not nuance. It is incoherent.

The paradox deepens further. Agencies say they are overwhelmingly confident in recommending news to clients – but simultaneously admit it is the second-most-likely channel to be cut. 

How can a medium be both trusted and disposable? The answer is uncomfortable: trust is being acknowledged rhetorically but ignored commercially.

The inconsistency becomes impossible to ignore when agencies describe news as a “trusted, reputable source,” yet identify political associations as the main reason for avoidance. 

Since when did journalism become a reputational liability? If political discourse disqualifies news, what exactly is the acceptable role of journalism – to exist without context, consequence, or public debate?

Clients reinforce the contradiction

Many clients agree that news environments are a good fit for their brands. In fact, they discuss news media with their agencies when preparing campaign briefs. 

Around half acknowledge that their target audiences actively engage with news.

And yet, the investment does not follow.

Both agencies and advertisers concede that regulated news media – across print, digital, and broadcast – are underused as an effective and trusted advertising environment. 

Yet this admission is overridden by exaggerated fears about brand safety. Perception triumphs over evidence. Risk-aversion overrides responsibility.

And the industry appears unwilling to change. The majority of agencies and clients signal no appetite to rethink their brand safety frameworks – even when those frameworks are blunt instruments that penalise credible journalism while failing to meaningfully address actual harm elsewhere.

Meanwhile, tensions simmer between agencies and clients. Agencies attribute “client bias” for excluding news. Clients claim they discuss news for all or some briefs with their agency. The result? Diffused accountability. Everyone recognises the mismatch. No one takes ownership of it.

The solution appears to be more research

More proprietary studies. More attention metrics. More ROI data. More case studies. As if the industry simply hasn’t seen enough evidence. 

But evidence alone cannot be the only barrier. The market is already saturated with proof points demonstrating the effectiveness and trust advantage of news environments. If research alone could solve this problem, it would have done so by now.

The real issue is structural and cultural. Brand safety tools and buying systems have been calibrated to avoid discomfort, not to reward quality. Journalism – by its very definition – deals with the real world.  

Here lies the ultimate irony: while legitimate news organisations are defunded in the name of “safety,” vast sums of advertising money continue to flow – largely unchecked – into environments rife with misinformation, criminal exploitation, and toxic content. 

Regulated publishers and broadcasters are penalised. Unregulated platforms prosper.

The ad industry cannot continue to claim it values trust and responsible media investment while economically undermining the very institutions that uphold them.

We cannot call news media “trusted” and then treat it as toxic.

We cannot demand “brand safety” while ignoring where real risk lies.

And we cannot expect “quality journalism” to survive if we refuse to fund it.

The paradox is no longer theoretical. The ad industry must decide whether it will genuinely support trusted journalism – or continue to undermine it.

That is why at The News Alliance, we have a plan: to win the hearts and minds of many more agencies and advertisers by showing that trusted, professionally produced journalism is not just safe, but essential for building credible, lasting brands.

And ultimately to get news back where it belongs – on more of those media plans. 

Sarah Jones is director of planning at Sky Media and chair of The News Alliance.