News Pubs Need to Incentivize Marketers to Ignore Brand Safety

Talk to any CRO at a news publication and one of their biggest complaints is that advertisers are afraid to spend on their sites because of brand safety, cutting off a much-needed revenue stream for news organizations.

To the marketer, they just don’t want their ads to be seen next to stories that are unpleasant. In their minds, there are other places that are better suited—aka less controversial—to run their ads. Publishers argue that readers are smart enough to discern a story from an advertisement.

According to research by Stagwell, a marketing and communications firm, the idea of ads avoiding news is effectively irrelevant (my words, not theirs). A couple of their findings include:

Among Gen Z, the average purchase intent for brands whose ads were placed next to high-quality news articles on the Middle East conflict was 65%, compared to 66% for inflation and 67% for crime—differences that are statistically insignificant. Purchase intent was 69% for sports (widely considered a ‘safe’ news topic) illustrating a minimal four percentage point difference between the ‘riskiest’ and ‘safest’ topics.

Among more affluent American households, the average favorability ratings for brands whose ads were placed next to high-quality, yet political news articles on former President Trump and President Biden were each 72%—just two percentage points less than brands whose ads were placed next to a non-political entertainment story.

In other words, a story about how incredible my New York Knicks are is only mildly safer than a devastating story about the war in the Middle East. I’d argue they’re paying a much higher CPM to go against the sports content since there’s so much more competition. And yet, marketers won’t put their ads next to the controversial stories.

Ironically, we know that brand safety doesn’t matter. As Digiday wrote, “brand safety is a myth.” And why is it a myth? Because brands evolve and go where they believe their customers are. Consider X. There was a big push to stop spending and many did, but, as Digiday writes, they come back.

And yet, slowly but surely, the old guard is starting to trickle back. While some agency buyers told Digiday they still considered the platform off-limits, several others indicated that it was no longer seen as a clear threat to a client’s brand safety guidelines.

The reasons for this return are varied, but one thing’s certain: it’s not because X suddenly got safer. The platform’s policies haven’t changed much in the last two years — unlike Musk’s profile as the self-styled “first bro” of president Donald Trump.

Which only reinforces the point: brand safety isn’t about control — it’s about adapting. Platforms shift, policies bend and advertisers adjust accordingly. Given enough time, even the boldest red lines start to blur.

X’s problem has always been that the ad stack is bad, so marketers never had a reason to spend. That’s less the case with Meta, which runs a world-class ad system. CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants more political content on Facebook and Instagram. But that’s not brand safe, right? Doesn’t matter. I guarantee marketers aren’t going to pull a dollar because the ads work.

So, what should publishers do?

We need to incentivize marketers to overcome their bias against news and spend with us. It’s not good enough to say that journalism needs support from the marketing community. They don’t care. Marketers have bills to pay and their ability to pay those bills is a function of keeping their jobs—in other words, it’s risk minimization and/or looking great to their bosses. That’s why they’ll keep spending on platforms like X and Meta. They’re not going to lose their jobs when the ads work so damn well.

So, how do you make them feel as if they are minimizing their risk and/or looking great to their bosses? Do as the Godfather says: make them an offer they can’t refuse.

Take The Wall Street Journal. In September, Adweek reported that WSJ was offering a guarantee to brands. Spend between October 15th and November 15th—the absolute worst period in U.S. politics—and they’d guarantee the performance of that campaign with make-good impressions if the ad buys didn’t reach benchmark numbers. In that story:

According to [Global CRO of WSJ and Dow Jones Josh] Stinchcomb, 37% of Wall Street Journal readers were more likely to recall an ad than in the off-cycle period, 58% were more likely to look for more information after seeing an ad, and 125% were more likely to purchase or plan a purchase after seeing an ad.

Fast forward to late January and Adweek reported the results:

During the guaranteed period, display media on The Journal outperformed its guaranteed AU benchmarks by 45%, and online video exceeded attention benchmarks by 31%, according to Waldele.

Crushed it. The Wall Street Journal went to their partners and incentivized them to overcome their fears of advertising during an election season. The marketer could go into their boss’s office and say, “look, I know it’s risky, but they’re guaranteeing that it’s going to perform better and if it doesn’t, they’ll make good.” You’ve made that marketer fearless.

That’s what more publishers need to do. If we believe that our ad inventory works, then we need to take a risk and make it a simple exercise for marketers. There is so much ad inventory available online where there is no perceived risk. We need to help them do their jobs. Show them the value and then back it up with a guarantee.

If we’re not willing to do that, brands will go elsewhere. The emotional argument that “marketers should fund journalism” isn’t effective. It doesn’t help them pay their bills or achieve their objectives. Ads that work are effective. Ads with a guarantee are effective. Help the marketer and they’ll be more comfortable spending with you.