Challenging hate by engaging with advertisers can be easier than you might think. Here are some key strategies to consider when taking action:
1. Does the advertiser know?
Stop Funding Hate supporters will often find examples of brands who don’t want their adverts to appear in hate-spouting media placing ads in such media, but don’t know that they are. So, once these brands are made aware, they don’t think twice about pulling out. This happens a lot, especially with online advertising.
While paid ads on television can be placed across specific channels visible to the brand, paid online ads are usually placed by opaque algorithms, which often means that companies don’t track where their ads appear. However, this automated nature of online advertising also means that it’s quick, easy and (crucially) cost-neutral for a brand to exclude a toxic website once they are made aware that their ads are appearing there. This is where you can make a difference.
Just informing companies – by emailing or tagging them on social media – can be enough to persuade them to do the right thing.
2. You don’t always need a massive campaign
Sometimes what works is volume: thousands of people taking action by contacting the same brand until they finally pull an ad campaign.
However, other companies may not know where their ad is appearing, or they don’t think their customers will care. So, quite often, one email or social media post is enough for them to pull their ads completely.
Ultimately, if the advertiser doesn’t want to be associated with the toxic media outlet in question, it’s relatively easy to sever ties.
3. Make a clear visual connection
Unfortunately, sometimes one email isn’t enough. Some brands who claim to be “against all forms of discrimination” don’t always apply this to their advertising, especially if they get enough exposure from it.
However, every brand is image-conscious. If they’re spending money on advertising at all then, by definition, they care about how their brand is perceived.
In Stop Funding Hate’s experience, calling out a brand on social media using simple, understandable visuals, has a solid success rate. Visually associating a brand with a horrible headline or TV clip from the toxic media platform they advertise on directly undermines the positive image they’re spending so much money to build. And the more widely that visual clash is shared, the more of an impact this will have.
4. Targeting the brand’s image is often more effective than organising a full product boycott
A lot of groups and activists use boycotts to disrupt a brand’s cashflow or tarnish their reputation. Many people also boycott brands at an individual level because they can’t abide the idea of financially supporting a certain company. However, although boycotting can be an incredibly effective long-term campaign tool, it isn’t the most efficient method for every campaign.
In the specific context of targeting brands advertising with media outlets spreading hate, boycotts can be difficult to implement on the scale needed to hit a company’s bottom line and force them to act. This is because boycotts often require large numbers of people to change their shopping habits, and to be sustained for weeks or months on end in order to be effective.
In fact, we’ve never seen a brand being boycotted into pulling advertising. Instead, we’ve found that targeting the brand’s image is cheaper, quicker, and more effective.
A public campaign – which, remember, can be as simple as a well-crafted social media post – associating a company with a hateful media outlet is bad for business. Board rooms full of people spend big money and serious time constructing a specific “vibe” for their brand. So, if customers suddenly learn a company’s actions don’t match up with its reputation, that company will usually scramble to get out of that bind.
5. Tell a personal story
Telling an advertiser why their association with a hateful TV station or newspaper impacts you personally can be particularly effective. It’s hard for a brand to ignore a customer who says, “You’re directly contributing to my demonisation.”
You don’t have to go public either. Sometimes, those of us affected by hateful rhetoric are understandably reluctant to campaign publicly, given the risk of being targeted by far-right trolls. In this case, you can always write a private email, for example, rather than post publicly.
Also, remember that even if you’re not directly implicated by the hatred, you might still have a personal reason to feel aggrieved by it. For example, in 2016, Lego pulled toy promotions in the Daily Mail after being contacted by a British father called Bob Jones. He wrote a viral Facebook post saying that, while he and his son shared a love for the building blocks, “it genuinely bothers me that a great progressive company like yours supports this ‘news’ paper.”
Bob was upset by Lego’s decision, and his message made the difference.
6. Don’t go all in on one particular brand – the media company is the real target
Stop Funding Hate began by using the traditional NGO campaigning model of focusing heavily on a single company to try to persuade them to do the right thing. The community poured huge amounts of time and energy into different ways of targeting John Lewis for its association with the Daily Mail. Despite all those efforts, John Lewis didn’t budge. However, a few days after we went big on the John Lewis campaign, Lego pulled out, despite having had only a fraction of the attention directed at John Lewis.
Lego’s decision was a huge boost for Stop Funding Hate at a time when the campaign was still at a formative stage. It became an international news story, and helped to prove that this new model of campaigning could actually work.
Another key lesson learnt through this experience was that it is vital to be flexible about which advertisers you engage with, and not become overly fixated on a single brand, because ultimately the media company is the real target.
Any company that cuts ties is a financial hit to the media outlet, and an important win for the campaign.
7. Don’t expect to get every single brand out
It’s worth remembering that you don’t need to get 100% of advertisers to disengage to have an effect. You just need enough to give the target media pause for thought.
In fact, you shouldn’t expect to pull every brand out, or you’ll never be finished. Contact all of the companies placing ads with the media in question, and you’ll likely get some to withdraw. Some brands advertising on toxic media platforms are “low-hanging fruit” – they’d likely pull their ads if they realised where they were appearing – but you won’t know who they are until you make contact.
8. The wins can come where you don’t expect them
The brands that are most willing to pull out will often surprise you. With this, it’s important to not make assumptions about which brands will do the right thing.
For example, during the initial stages of the campaign, Stop Funding Hate assumed that the Co-op and John Lewis would be the ones to most likely drop their ads with the Daily Mail because they marketed themselves as ethical brands. However, this was not the case. In contrast, a number of other brands – who were less publicly vocal about their brand ethics – responded quickly and decisively. This is another reason to try every single advertiser.
9. Don’t always expect a concrete “victory” – and a quiet “win” still counts
In some cases, there will be a clear moment when you know a campaign has reached its goal. Here, a brand might post a statement online that they’ve withdrawn from a certain outlet as a result of your campaigning. Or, better still, the outlet itself will acknowledge you.
For instance, the Daily Mail reached out to the Stop Funding Hate staff to initiate a dialogue. Stop Funding Hate also had conversations with The Sun. While the Daily Express didn’t talk to us directly, they did publish a statement saying that they wanted to change certain editorial lines after one of our campaigns.
However, in many cases, you’ll hear nothing. Brands will often pull their advertising without making any public announcements. In today’s climate of orchestrated backlash against progressive values – where brands taking a stand against racism and hate are heavily targeted by far-right trolls – it’s understandable that some advertisers prefer to do the right thing quietly.
For example, a few months after the Daily Mail changed their editor in 2018, they announced that 265 advertisers had been tempted back. We had no idea that so many had left. Even though the vast majority of those advertisers had made no public statement, their decision to take their money elsewhere still had a significant impact.
10. If they need it, show love to brands who do the right thing
Companies who pull ads from a certain platform can come under attack. When this happens, it’s often effective to do your best to mobilise people to show them some support – it can help the brand reassert their decision.
In 2023, for example, Grind Coffee pulled ads from GB News. Far-right trolls piled in online. Lawrence Fox even said he was going to boycott the company. They were clearly trying to pressure Grind Coffee to reverse course.
So, a priority follow-up action to Stop Funding Hate’s campaign was to show Grind Coffee some love, which resulted in supporters buying their products to congratulate them. A few days later, Grind put out a statement saying they were standing by their decision, and thanked Lawrence Fox personally; his call for a boycott boosted sales and recruited new customers.
Sometimes, brands will only tell you about their decision to drop their ads from a certain media platform privately, in which case be respectful of that choice. Announcing it publicly could result in them being pressured into backing down.
Ultimately, if a brand is getting pummelled online, shower them with praise and support. You might get them out of a corner.