Advertising Activism Has Impact

Tucker Carlson used to wear a bow tie. He was, back in the day, a boyish conservative who took a public position that was right-of-center, but for most of his short-lived career on CNN, he was one half of a balanced, if irate news talk show called “Crossfire.”

 In October of 2004 Jon Stewart, then host of the “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central, was a guest on “Crossfire,” where he eviscerated Carlson. Stewart noted, with tears in his eyes, that the show was “hurting America.” CNN canceled “Crossfire,” and fired Carlson.

Carlson moved to MSNBC. As MSNBC become more left, Carlson found himself isolated, and in 2009 he moved to Fox News, where’s he’s been ever since. He also launched The Daily Caller, an ultra-conservative website.



But today, Carlson’s Fox News show is facing strong backlash from a commentary he delivered where he said, that immigration  "makes our country poorer, and dirtier, and more divided.” Was he calling immigrants “dirty” -- or was he referring to garbage at the U.S.-Mexico border, as he later claimed?

But organizations including, Media Matters and Sleeping Giants pointed their powerful Twitter feeds and email lists at Tucker’s sponsors -- and the impact is already measurable. Farmers Insurance is the latest to pull ads, joining 25 advertisers that include Lexus, Samsung, Pfizer, CareerBuilder, TD Ameritrade, IHOP, Jaguar, Western Digital, Pacific Life, and Bowflex, all of which have said they would no longer sponsor the show.

There’s some debate as to whether putting economic pressure on Carlson limits his free speech. To which Media Matters President Angelo Carusone responded, “No one forced Tucker Carlson's odious bigotry and fixation on white genocide conspiracy theories. And that's what advertisers are rejecting. Rightfully so, too.”

The power of activated advertisers is growing. Fox News host Laura Ingraham trolled Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg on Twitter, and he responded by posting Ingraham’s top advertisers. Fifteen advertisers then pulled out of her TV show, while her longtime radio show was canceled due to continued advertiser defections.

The largest organization focused on engaging advertising activism is Sleeping Giants, with 217,000 followers on Twitter. The formerly anonymous site took on Breitbart after the 2016 election and has been effective at increasing awareness of how big advertisers spend their dollars, often without their direct knowledge.

SG co-founder Matt Rivitz, whose identity was revealed by  Daily Caller, discovered that “programmatic advertising” was responsible for many of the ads appearing on Breitbart. Rivitz told the New York Times he was struck by what he viewed as “incredibly bigoted and racist and sexist” content on Breitbart News.

Nandini Jammi, SG co-founder, is clear about where she stands on free speech. “I fully support that right for them to write whatever they want,” Jammi told the Times. "What I have a problem with is Facebook and Twitter monetizing it.”

And while many advertisers respond to public pressure and Twitter campaigns to pull their dollars from offending programs, a small but growing number of brands are leaning into social issues.

Most notable is Nike, which made Colin Kaepernick the face of its 30th-anniversary “Just Do It” advertising campaign.  Other big brands embracing social stands are  Burger King, which used rainbow paper to wrap burgers in support LGBTQ rights, and Starbucks, which made a commitment to hire refugees. And Levis, Patagonia, and Equinox all have launched issue-driven campaigns.

So, what’s changing? Millennials clearly connect their brand relationships to their social and political positions. In one study, 91% of millennials said they would switch brands to one associated with a cause that they care about. More broadly, three-quarters of all Americans would refuse to purchase a product if they found out a company supported an issue contrary to their beliefs, according to recent research from the Cone Communications unit of Porter Novelli.

The era of brands sitting on the sidelines is over. Every ad placement is now an endorsement, and building a brand story of social engagement and responsibility isn’t optional. As consumers become more conscious of how brands align themselves with issues, dollars and loyalty will follow.

6 comments about "Advertising Activism Has Impact".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Tom Tyler from GCTVTexas, January 8, 2019 at 2:10 p.m.

    What you are describing above is Politically Correct fascism, it is an assault on Free Speech and it's based on Politically Correct Hate, Politically Correct Racism, Politically Correct Sexism, Nazi-style Big Lie techniques and a totalitarian political viewpoint. Companies aligning themselves with these astroturf orgnizations like SG and MM are no better than the German companies that aligned themselves with Adolph and his boys after the fall of Wiemar. When the American people finally take notice of what is going on, these brands will be in big trouble with consumers.

  2. steven rosenbaum from, January 8, 2019 at 2:22 p.m.

    Tom - that's a fantastic cookie cutter Alt Right response. Do you have a blog where you write more lengthy commentary of this sort, or do you just post troll comments? When is GCTV going live? Because I'm sure I can post on your blog as well. In terms of free speech, Tucker has the right to say whatever he wants. But he has no 'right' to broadcast on TV, and advertisers have no obligation to sponsor his hate. It is - after all - a free market.

  3. John Grono from GAP Research replied, January 8, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.

    Thanks Steve.   You saved me from responding to another RWNJ post.

  4. PJ Lehrer from NYU, January 15, 2019 at 11:12 a.m.

    Carlson can say whatever he wants, just not on my dime.

    Gen Z does not feel the same way about free speech as previous generations do.  Here's some interesting feedback from my students...

  5. Tom Siebert from BENEVOLENT PROPAGANDA, March 1, 2019 at 1 p.m.

    Pretty funny you call Tom T., above, a talking point hack, becuase that's EXACTLY what your piece is, Steve, as well as your condescending followup comment.  It's a hit job from a hack. Could've been written verbatim from the COWARDS and FRAUDS at Sleeping Giants, in fact.

    Maybe you can help me, though? I've been trying to track down that coward and fraud MATT RIVITZ of Sleeping Giants since he blocked me on Twitter and LinkedIn. I want to ask him about Sleeping Giants relationship with Buzzfeed and a bunch of things that went down last Friday.

    MATT RIVITZ of Sleeping Giants doesn't want to talk to me about that, though, and has blocked me on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn. You know what they say about cockroaches when the light starts to get focused on them! They run and hide! But I don't give up that easily.

    Meanwhile, if anybody who wants the real scoop on what type of fear-mongering bullies and fascists Sleeping Giants and MATT RIVITZ really are should check out this Real Clear Politics story:

    So I'm figuring you've got a way to get in touch with MATT RIVITZ of Sleeping Giants, since you seem to be such a big fan, Steve. Will you hook me up please? I really think it would be better to debate these things out in the open instead of sniping from the shadows and getting pawns and puppets to carry their dirty water. Thanks!

  6. steven rosenbaum from, March 1, 2019 at 1:07 p.m.

    Tom, here's the thing. If you're going to be part of the conversation... start by signing your name. "Tom Tyler" links to a Linked In with no contacts, no friends, no picture, and the about section says: "GCTVTexas will be expanding in Q4 of 2016 and will be seeking partners, producers, creatives and technical experts in a number of areas." 

    Since 2016 is 4 years ago, let's agree that this is just a troll account. If you want to engage with a real profile, happy to address your comments. 

Next story loading loading..