Boycotts before. Is this one different?

2 min readJul 2, 2020

Brand ads contribute up c.98% of social platform revenues.

It’s different. For the first time, building undiluted scale has consequences. Combined with the unintended abuse of anonymity, hate speech, fact-checking, questions of trust, evolving regulation, the possibility of losing key indemnities, and managing expectations.

The key is moderation. Blocking individual accounts is straightforward, but it’s not viable to moderate mass unauthenticated audiences risking a moderation tsunami, that AI isn’t going to resolve alone.

Social platforms will surely evolve, to avoid extinction by regulation, but the most progressive media-owners and brands will wish to own the conversation and context with their most engaged audiences for themselves.

Using an evolved structure of authenticated audiences, trusted content, and operating agile diversified business models on demand based on precision, it’s complimentary to social platforms mass market focus, and makes sense.

It’s a game-changer for media-owners who may strengthen balance sheets, delivering value and data to brands, who have endured unsustainable cost inflation during the last 5 years.

This boycott combined with other factors will pass but act as a catalyst to progressively redistribute value. This will benefit audiences, brands, media-owners, and ultimately social platforms themselves who by collaboration can avoid extinction by regulation, and focus on the benefits they can uniquely deliver to global audiences.

Simon Hellier is CEO of GlobalDrum




Empowering brands to take back ownership of the conversation with their most valued audiences