Skip to main content

After June 2nd, following the killing of George Floyd, brands took a stance and launched the “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign, which aims to persuade advertisers to temporarily suspend advertising on Facebook, to convince Mark Zuckerberg to take effective measures to limit hate speech, racism, and violence on his social media platform.

It’s a strong action or at least one taken by those with great bargaining power.

We try to tell this story, with numbers in hand, in Digital Tea #7, our weekly chat on marketing and digital communication.

In our virtual tea break, we retraced the story from the initial events to try to understand the real economic impact on the blue social media platform, but we also tried to go deeper, asking the fateful question that every journalist/student/citizen should ask in the face of news events (and not only): why?

Or rather: beyond the fact itself that major companies have divested substantial sums of money from media spending on Facebook, what are the motivations?

The battle has a noble ideal, but are we sure that the goal is the only one? To help Facebook be better towards itself and the world?

Let’s be honest…

Upon closer inspection, this rebellion lends itself to pursuing multiple objectives: from protecting the brand that does not want its sponsorships to appear next to aggressive content, to continuing with high CSR goals, to a derived benefit: taking back what is theirs, the fans, organic visibility, spaces increasingly eroded by Facebook that restricts them by demanding larger investments in return.

Let’s be clear: we’re not saying that the Stop Hate for Profit campaign is all a big scheme for ulterior motives. No.

We’re just delving into the issue so as not to stop at the surface and try to understand what could have generated so much movement.

If you’re curious about this little investigation, feel free to join in with your clues and suggestions. We started from here…