In an article in today’s Ad Age Digital, Allison Mooney discusses the advent of ad networks dedicated to the “social good.”
She starts off her article by saying, “Now that President Obama has issued a call to arms for activism . . . “
Well, that’s not actually what the president is calling for. What he is calling for is an increase in volunteerism (and he’s not the first president to do that, by the way), not activism. Volunteerism and activism are two very different things. But her lead-off sentence does get one’s attention.
Allison continues her article and segues this idea into news about the creation of Publishers With a Purpose, a consortium dedicated to “encouraging Web site publishers to pledge 5% of their total ad inventory to selected nonprofits and social causes, with the shared goal of simply doing good.” Uh-huh. On the surface it seems like it’s all good, but let’s dig deeper. Let’s get past the all warm and fuzzy stuff. There are at least two things about this idea that concern me. In no order of importance:
1) “Selected nonprofits and social causes.” Who selects these non-profit organizations which will be the recipients of the web site publishers’ largesse?
2) “The shared goal of simply doing good.” Who says that the selected organizations are “doing good?”
Prior to the creation of such a network, non-profits had to earn “economic votes” in order to have the money to place ads at all. Those economic votes were in the form of donations “democratically” given by a constituency of thousands or tens of thousands. The nonprofits’ ideals were therefore vetted by many, many people. But with the creation of such an ad network, the nonprofits now do not need to gain those democratically awarded economic votes. The vetting process is severely impaired. The nonprofits simply have to convince the small constituency of Publishers With a Purpose that the ideals of the nonprofit have merit. Sounds like a concentration of power.
Such power can have negative impact on business.
Not all nonprofits have an idea of social good that everyone would agree with. And, indeed, many ideas that may be listed under the “social good” label, may have negative effects upon business, creating inefficiencies and costing jobs. A loss of jobs can never be considered to be for the “social good.”
By giving 5% of ad space to such organizations, business may actually be giving organizations who compete with business more strength, adding to the power of a class of business competitor that I call “irregular,” i.e., not your usual garden-variety type of head-to-head competitor. And by awarding that strength, participating publishers may actually help consolidate market and social power within the hands of fewer individuals.
Allison wraps up the article by saying, “sounds like a great way to further corporate social responsibility efforts.” Yes. It certainly does. But all corporate social responsibility efforts are not necessarily worth furthering simply because they are labeled as such.
