Advertisers feel ‘less powerful’ as Meta embraces right-wing influences

Meta could have opted for a content moderation tactic similar to Xbut don’t expect brands to boycott Facebook the same way they did Elon Musk’s platform.

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta announcement This week saw changes to the company’s content moderation policies, including ending third-party fact-checking and lifting restrictions on free speech on Facebook and Instagram.

The announcement was made by Joel Kaplan, Meta’s new Republican political manager, and is one of several recent conservative moves. Meta also donated $1 million to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration fund and added an additional Trump ally and UFC CEO. Dana White to the company’s board of directors.

Advertisers are unlikely to back down, as Meta’s advertising products are unmatched in scale and ability to drive performance. Brands also find themselves in a position where they are “less powerful” than they were a few years ago during #StopHateforProfit. boycott against then-Facebook, said Courtney Werpy, associate director of performance media at Collective Measure. In 2020, more than 500 brands, including Coca-Cola, Ford and Starbucks, pulled their advertising to protest Facebook’s handling of hate speech and misinformation.

“Brands seem less powerful. They have less of a say, and with the political polarization of all these social media channels, it’s difficult for brands to know whether they should speak out or not,” Werpy added.

Brands that once vehemently called for stronger security measures are now unsure how to adapt to the changing political terrain, said Shamsul Chowdhury, vice president of paid social at Jellyfish.

“What was once considered dangerous is now viewed more leniently and is of less concern,” Chowdhury said. “This shift likely reflects changes in the political climate and the increasing desire for brands to appear in environments they would have avoided in the past.”

However, some advertisers are still thinking about fleeing. About 10% of growth marketing agency We Are Rival’s clients are considering pausing their ad spend on Meta due to these changes. Jenna Cummings, co-founder and media director of We Are Rival, warned that pausing or reducing ad spending is not practical for most advertisers.

“The vast majority of Meta’s ad spend comes from small and medium-sized businesses,” Cummings said. “They never boycotted en masse.”

The mask is removed at Meta

The concept of brands appearing alongside and funding content deemed unsavory by advertisers is coming under increasing scrutiny. Last year, the Justice Department and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service began investigating ad verification companies Integral Ad Science and DoubleVerify.

For successful advertisers, the brand safety problem is compounded by the limitations of Meta and Google’s own AI-enabled brand safety tools like Advantage+ and Performance Max. These tools give advertisers limited visibility and control over where their ads appear.

The conversation is now shifting to control and what is actually being sold to advertisers. With the rise of Advantage+ and Performance Max campaigns, traditional brand safety tools and verification providers no longer operate within the walled gardens of paid social. This means advertisers have even less control over what they buy.

“Brand safety…has a nebulous economic value that there is very little control over,” Cummings said.

How brands can play smart

Brands cannot afford to ignore Meta. At Wpromote, 65-70% of the agency’s social media spend goes on Meta, making it a central part of most strategies.

“De-prioritizing or boycotting what is arguably their best-performing channel would be a massive decision for advertisers,” said Darren D’Alorio, vice president of paid social at Wpromote.

We Are Rival’s Cummings recommended diversifying social spending while keeping Meta in the mix.

“Get the value, but be realistic about the game you’re playing,” she said. For example, Meta’s self-optimized inventory, like Facebook’s right-wing ads, often leads to poor results. Some campaigns see 10 to 15 percent of spending go toward these expenses, which are known for fraudulent investments, Cummings said.

Cummings said Meta CPMs, or the cost advertisers pay to reach 1,000 people, for feed-based ads have increased to cost between $30 and $50 since 2023, making it an expensive purchase. Instead, brands could purchase inventory of comparable quality through CTV for the same price.

“A lot of brands have this default position of Google and Meta, that’s all I need. Not necessarily… there’s more than one way to skin a cat,” Cummings said.