# data[].attributes.body
“The Choice” was a short advertisement on YouTube uploaded by Procter & Gamble.  It was part of their campaign to appear progressive on the topic of racial inequality and gain support as a company that aligns with public interests.  Most of the video is of close up shots of black and white skin, close enough to see every wrinkle, with text about racial inequality overlaid.  It was an interesting video, but it lacks connection to anything real.  The text was, while not wrong, also not really evidence of a real effort to help.  To make it better, I would suggest adding minority celebrities that are universally liked.

# data[].attributes.body
In P&G's advertisement "Widen the Screen", there is almost no mention of anything related to the brand or products that this video was meant to promote.  The focus is of course on making an association between P&G and progressive stances on race.  There were a lot of good ideas presented in the advertisement, but there was no evidence that P&G actually were using their position to do anything about it other than this campaign that directly benefits their brand.  If I were them, I would couple this campaign with some sort of actual real world evidence of helping black communities like a donation or a dedicated branch that is focused on promotions that actually propagate helpful behaviors.

# data[].attributes.body
Technically, its more about what wasn't written, but in June of 2020, companies like BMW, HP, PayPal, Pepsi, Doritos, and Adobe decided to boycott Facebook to protest the platform’s irresponsible propagation of hate speech, racism, and misleading voter information.  This movement caused a lot of advertisers to pull out, but many returned shortly afterwards.  The companies who pulled out made the decision to show their commitment against companies like Facebook that are basically universally disliked.  Taking a stance against Facebook is a sure-fire way to increase a company's positive sentiment in the public's eye.  The actual extent that it hurt Facebook, however, was very insignificant and temporary.  Facebook actually relies on a lot more than just large advertisers as they have a lot of small businesses that rely on Facebook advertisements and can't afford to pull out.  Most people probably wont be putting a small business on blast for using Facebook anyways, so much of Facebook's income was completely unaffected.  In the end, though, I think the companies that wanted the good publicity got what they needed and they did it by saving money on advertisements at the same time.  I think they really should have actually committed fully to it or not done anything at all, since crawling back to Facebook after June is over is hardly a good look, though most people probably forgot about it by that time anyways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Major advertisers on Facebook reduced their spending by millions of dollars in July, but not enough to significantly damage the platform's revenue.

The advertiser boycott of Facebook took a toll on the social media giant, but it may have caused more damage to the company's reputation than to its bottom line.

The boycott, called #StopHateForProfit by the civil rights groups that organized it, urged companies to stop paying for ads on Facebook in July to protest the platform's handling of hate speech and misinformation. More than 1,000 advertisers publicly joined, out of a total pool of more than 9 million, while others quietly scaled back their spending.

The 100 advertisers that spent the most on Facebook in the first half of the year spent $221.4 million from July 1 through July 29, 12 percent less than the $251.4 million spent by the top 100 advertisers a year earlier, according to estimates from the advertising analytics platform Pathmatics. Of those 100, nine companies formally announced a pullback in paid advertising, cutting their spending to $507,500 from $26.2 million.

Many of the companies that stayed away from Facebook said they planned to return, and many are mom-and-pop enterprises and individuals that depend on the platform for promotion. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, has emphasized the importance of small business, saying during an earnings call on Thursday that "some seem to wrongly assume that our business is dependent on a few large advertisers."

Facebook said that the top 100 spenders contributed 16 percent of its $18.7 billion in revenue in the second quarter, which ended on June 30. During the first three weeks of July, Facebook said, overall ad revenue grew 10 percent over last year, a rate the company expects to continue for the full quarter.

The boycott complicated planning for advertisers. The Kansas-based digital agency DEG had "a whirlwind of a month" as its small to midsize clients grappled with whether they could reach enough customers without Facebook, said Quinn Sheek, its director of media and search. Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram make up more than a third of digital spending for DEG clients.

Of the 60 percent of DEG clients that joined the July boycott, four out of five are planning to return to Facebook in August, with many having "decided it's too much for them during a difficult economic time to remain off," Ms. Sheek said. Still, the boycott helped amplify discussion of toxic content on Facebook. The issue was raised in a congressional hearing this past week and in repeated meetings between ad industry representatives and Facebook leaders. Facebook, which said it is working with industry groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, released the results of a civil rights audit last month and agreed to hire a civil rights executive.

"What could really hurt Facebook is the long-term effect of its perceived reputation and the association with being viewed as a publisher of 'hate speech' and other inappropriate content," Stephen Hahn-Griffiths, the executive vice president of the public opinion analysis company RepTrak, wrote in a post last month.

In addition to the prevalence of hate speech on the platform, its critics have also focused on the company's treatment of user privacy and foreign election interference.

"You could argue that Facebook has a bloodied nose and two reputational black eyes," Mr. Hahn-Griffiths wrote.

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, said during the company's earnings call that, like the boycott's organizers, "we don't want hate on our platforms, and we stand firmly against it."

The ad industry was already in upheaval when the boycott began, as businesses closed, layoffs swept through the economy and homebound consumers slowed their shopping. Before they reduced spending on Facebook in July, advertisers like Microsoft, Starbucks, Unilever and Target took a temporary break from the platform in June, as many companies were reacting to pandemic-related marketing budget cuts and widespread protests over racism and police brutality. Disney's spending on Facebook has mostly trended downward since late March, according to Pathmatics.

Last month, large advertisers like Procter & Gamble, Samsung, Walmart and Geico sharply curtailed paid advertising on Facebook without joining the official boycott, according to Pathmatics. Others, like Hershey and Hulu, beefed up their spending on alternate platforms like Twitter and YouTube.

Companies like Beam Suntory and Coca-Cola have vowed to continue pressuring Facebook, especially as the presidential race heats up. On Thursday, the ice cream company Ben & Jerry's said it planned to keep withholding spending on product promotions through the end of the year "to send a message."

The advertiser boycott "was a warning shot, an opening salvo," said Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief executive of the civil rights group the Anti-Defamation League, which helped set up the ad boycott. Organizers and other groups now plan to expand the boycott into Europe, to include Facebook users, and to address other concerns, like the presence of child sexual abuse on the platform.

Half of the companies that work with the agency Allen & Gerritsen in Boston and Philadelphia participated in the boycott, said Derek Welch, its vice president of media. Many felt it was important to "do something that is meaningful and tangible in a sea of brands putting out very well-meaning statements," he said.

Mr. Welch said the agency's clients typically spend $150,000 to $200,000 a month total on Facebook. Several plan to continue boycotting.

"The big companies that have signed on have been great for visibility and getting the word out," he said. "But this is really all about these small businesses in aggregate who are spending $30,000 here or $50,000 there, whose decisions wouldn't normally make too much of a difference."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More Than 1,000 Companies Boycotted Facebook. Did It Work? (Published 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Major advertisers on Facebook reduced their spending by millions of dollars in July, but not enough to significantly damage the platform's revenue. The advertiser boycott of Facebook took a toll on the social media giant, but it may have caused more damage to the company's reputation than to its bottom line.

# data[].attributes.body
Blackout Tuesday was a hashtag and movement started on social media that many companies participated in.  Participating companies would post purely black images, often with some text on it that supported the BLM movement.  The movement was actually poorly received by the BLM movement, however and many articles criticized the companies that posted black squares on Instagram and twitter for being unhelpful and harming the BLM movement.  This was an example of brand activism gone wrong and some of the posts are deleted now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
#BlackLivesMatter#BlackoutTuesday#NBATogether pic.twitter.com/vKA1Z4yfa1
— NBA (@NBA) June 2, 2020

# data[].attributes.body
This article from adage.com was about how companies capitalized on George Floyd's death to ensure their brand had something progressive to say about the topic.  Brands like Nike, Disney, and Netflix spoke out about his death.  This just shows how companies have begun to react faster to the current events with the increasing speed of the news cycle.  Most companies are just scrambling to have a stance on everything just so people don't accuse them of being complicit in racism.

# data[].attributes.body
Nike used a lot of different tactics to try and convince people that they are supportive of the black lives matter cause.

Nike made sure that they had a lot of star power in their ad.  Specifically, it uses stars who are from groups that are historically discriminated against.  It opens on Lebron James and goes from there.  It uses them to make people think that the people who are discriminated against are supportive of the ad and Nike's messaging.

The director creates a sense of connection between the viewer and the people who are in the video.  Most of them are making eye contact, most of the shots are close ups and focus on the actions of the subject.  Everytime there is a close up, the director likes to zoom out in the next shot to show some sort of larger movement to represent the way that these people are a part of larger communities and movements.

In general, the focus on a connection between the viewer and celebrities while maintaining a relatable theme is impressively good at conveying the message of support for the cause.  The way the director makes a personal connection with celebrities while also connecting to the general public by showcasing the bigger picture and thereby almost including the viewer in the ad.

I think Nike's message, when viewed in a vacuum, would be mostly viewed favorably by most people.  It may seem at first like powerful, risky ad that makes people think that Nike is so concerned about the issue that they are putting out this ad to support the cause.  If you look at it closer, though, it is actually quite a safe ad.  It actually doesn't really say much of anything and the only stance you could say it takes is the "racism is bad" stance, which makes for quite a safe ad.  Personally, behind the theatrics and direction techniques, I find the message hollow since there seems to be no real solution provided and no legitimate message packed inside of it.

I think the article is explaining that other people are starting to see that side of the companies as well.  People are looking at the actual moves that companies make to support the cause.  Talk is cheap and people are realizing that brand activism doesn't equal actual support.  Luckily for Nike, they have taken brand activism to the next level and actually made real moves to market themselves as supporting the cause.  Nike now has 52% minorities as employees.  I don't know what percent are actually in positions of power and how many are just janitors, but they have the statistics to points to and advertise themselves as progressive safely.Nike used a lot of different tactics to try and convince people that they are supportive of the black lives matter cause.

Nike made sure that they had a lot of star power in their ad.  Specifically, it uses stars who are from groups that are historically discriminated against.  It opens on Lebron James and goes from there.  It uses them to make people think that the people who are discriminated against are supportive of the ad and Nike's messaging.

The director creates a sense of connection between the viewer and the people who are in the video.  Most of them are making eye contact, most of the shots are close ups and focus on the actions of the subject.  Everytime there is a close up, the director likes to zoom out in the next shot to show some sort of larger movement to represent the way that these people are a part of larger communities and movements.

In general, the focus on a connection between the viewer and celebrities while maintaining a relatable theme is impressively good at conveying the message of support for the cause.  The way the director makes a personal connection with celebrities while also connecting to the general public by showcasing the bigger picture and thereby almost including the viewer in the ad.

I think Nike's message, when viewed in a vacuum, would be mostly viewed favorably by most people.  It may seem at first like powerful, risky ad that makes people think that Nike is so concerned about the issue that they are putting out this ad to support the cause.  If you look at it closer, though, it is actually quite a safe ad.  It actually doesn't really say much of anything and the only stance you could say it takes is the "racism is bad" stance, which makes for quite a safe ad.  Personally, behind the theatrics and direction techniques, I find the message hollow since there seems to be no real solution provided and no legitimate message packed inside of it.

I think the article is explaining that other people are starting to see that side of the companies as well.  People are looking at the actual moves that companies make to support the cause.  Talk is cheap and people are realizing that brand activism doesn't equal actual support.  Luckily for Nike, they have taken brand activism to the next level and actually made real moves to market themselves as supporting the cause.  Nike now has 52% minorities as employees.  I don't know what percent are actually in positions of power and how many are just janitors, but they have the statistics to points to and advertise themselves as progressive safely.