In the days leading up to the Super Bowl, the
media is aflutter with stories about rejected ads. In one particular example, Fox rejected an ad
by 84 Lumber, which featured a border wall, for being too political. The newly revised ad, which was accepted for
broadcast on Sunday, now shows text that guides viewers to watch the original
ad: “See the conclusion at Journey84.com”.
In the same week, Tech giants including Google,
Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and Uber, have been working together on a letter
opposing President Trump’s controversial travel ban. The president’s actions have driven big businesses to
publicize their stance on the issue.
Not sure if you see what I’m getting at, but I
suppose I am wondering what this means for digital advertisers... There is clearly a trend developing in ads
against the backdrop of a highly charged, polarized political climate in the
United States (and a global reaction). While
traditional media platforms – like
broadcast television – have long had policies in place, and regulatory bodies –
like the FCC – to guide them on acceptable content for public viewing, are
digital platforms entering uncharted waters?
For digital platforms that have taken a public
stance on the issues, what role will they play in permitting digital ad content
that expresses opposing views? And if they do play a role, (e.g. only allowing content agreeing with
the platforms’ political views) are we now facing an increasingly segmented
digital content environment?
No comments:
Post a Comment