Month: June 2020

Many of those marketers are joining the “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign from the Anti-Defamation League, Color of Change, Common Sense Media, Free Press, the NAACP and Sleeping Giants. The campaign is meant to push Facebook to do something about the hate speech on its platform by hitting the company where it makes its money, advertising, according to the campaign website. 

To get a sense of how much advertisers are pulling back from Facebook, Digiday reached out to ad-tracking firm Pathmatics for estimates on how much advertisers spent on the platform during July 2019. Given that many marketers are planning to sit out the month of July, a look at how much they spent on the platform last July is apt. That said, some are planning to stop advertising for the rest of the year. With that being the case, Pathmatics also provided data from July 2019 through December 2019 to get a sense of how much those companies spend on the platforms for half of a year.

Pathmatics started to track marketers ad spending on Instagram early this spring. Below is the most recent month of spending data available on Instagram.

Aside from Facebook and Instagram platform advertising, some companies are also stopping the use of Facebook’s Audience Network, which as Gizmodo reported, is one way advertisers that may have stopped advertising on Facebook and Instagram but can still use Facebook data to target audiences on third-party websites. Pathmatics doesn’t track marketers ad spending on Facebook’s Audience Network.  

Here is a running list of the advertisers that won’t be running ads on Facebook in July. It’s unclear how long the pause will extend beyond the end of the month. Some marketers have committed to sitting out the rest of the year, while others say they will reevaluate as need be. 

Adidas

The company plans to pull paid advertising on Facebook and Instagram for the month of July for its namesake brand as well as Reebok, which Adidas acquired in 2005. Per Pathmatics data, Adidas spent $724,935 on paid advertising on Facebook in July 2019. Without available data for Instagram spending from last year, Pathmatics pointed Digiday to its most recent figure from June 2020 when Adidas spent an estimated $868,344 on Instagram ads. 

American Honda

For the month of July, the automaker is planning to sit out paid advertising on Facebook and Instagram for Honda as well as Acura. Per Pathmatics estimates, American Honda spent $205,671 on Facebook advertising during July 2019. As for Instagram, the company spent roughly $135,030 during June 2020. 

Arc’teryx’s parent company American Sports

High-end clothing and sporting goods company Arc’teryx also said it would join the campaign by sitting out advertising on Facebook and Instagram as well as the company’s Audience Network. Arc’teryx parent company American Sports spent approximately $4,067 on Facebook ads in July of 2019. As for Instagram, the most recent available estimate is from May 2020 when the company spent roughly $1,718 on paid ads on the platform. 

Beam Suntory 

Throughout July, the spirits behemoth plans to reportedly press pause on Facebook and Instagram advertising. Per Pathmatics’ estimates, Beam Suntory spent $1,605 on Facebook advertising in July of 2019. As for Instagram ads, Pathmatics estimates that the company spent $25,575 in June 2020 on the platform.

Ben & Jerry’s

The ice cream maker said it would stop advertising on Facebook and Instagram throughout July. It’s unclear if the company will extend that or what the company was approximately spending on the platform as Pathmatics didn’t have available data for the marketer. 

Birchbox

The subscription makeup brand plans to halt advertising on Facebook and Instagram during July. According to Pathmatics’ estimates, the company spent $91,557 on Facebook advertising in July of 2019. Meanwhile, on Instagram, Pathmatics estimates that the company recently spent $21,794 in June 2020 on ads on the platform.

Chipotle

The Mexican eatery will pause spending on Facebook on July 1, according to Bloomberg. Per Pathmatics data, the company spent roughly $283,041 on Facebook advertising during July 2019. It’s unclear if Chipotle will also pause Instagram. Per Pathmatics, the company spent nearly $1,275,160 on Instagram advertising during June 2020. 

Chobani

In a tweet, the Greek yogurt brand committed to pausing all social advertising for July. Per Pathmatics estimates, the company spent roughly $53,915 on paid Facebook ads during July 2019. As for Instagram, during June 2020, the company spent approximately $5,695 on paid ads on the platform.

The Clorox Company 

CMO Stacey Grier told Adweek that the company would stop advertising on Facebook and Instagram as well as stop using the Facebook Audience Network for the rest of the year. Per Pathmatics data, The Clorox Company spent approximately $2,681,316 on Facebook advertising from July 2019 through December 2019. As for Instagram, in June 2020 estimates put the company’s ad spend at $5,008,500.

Coca-Cola

The soda giant is planning to pause all social media spending for 30 days, according to CNBC. Per Pathmatics, Coca-Cola’s Facebook advertising spend for July 2019 was approximately $2,308,745. As for Instagram, the most recent available estimate is June 2020’s $50,842 spend.

Conagra

The company will sit out advertising on Facebook and Instagram for the rest of 2020, per CNBC. According to Pathmatics estimates, Conagra spent $280,750 on Facebook advertising from July 2019 through December 2019. As for Instagram, in June 2020, the company spent approximately $179,458 on advertising on the platform. 

Denny’s 

The chain will not advertise on Facebook and Instagram for the month of July. Per Pathmatics, Denny’s spent roughly $60,630 on Facebook ads during July 2019. As for Instagram, Denny’s media spending estimate for June 2020 was $170,114. 

Diageo

The company will stop spending on social media advertising July 1. Per Pathmatics, the alcohol giant spent approximately $1,080,250 on Facebook advertising during July 2019. When it comes to Instagram, Diageo spent nearly $3,707,844 on ads on the platform in June 2020, per Pathmatics’ data. 

Eddie Bauer

In a tweet, the company said it would suspend paid advertising on Facebook for July. Pathmatics estimates that the company spent $146,660 on advertising on the platform during July 2019. The most recent media spending estimate for Instagram put the company’s spending on the platform for June 2020 at $5,693. 

Edgewell Personal Care 

The parent company behind Wet Ones and Playtex will halt spending on Facebook, Instagram and the Facebook Audience Network beginning this week, per CNBC. Pathmatics estimates that Edgewell spent $473,877 on Facebook advertising during July 2019 and a total of $5,706,133 on Facebook advertising from July through December 2019. On Instagram, Edgewell spending estimates for June 2020 were $1,063,765. 

Eileen Fisher

The women’s clothing brand also tweeted its support of the campaign and said it would pause all paid ads on Facebook and Instagram for July. Pathmatics data found that the company spent roughly $30,621 on paid ads on Facebook during July 2019. As for Instagram, Pathmatics estimates that during June 2020 the company spent $1,563 on ads on the platform.

Ford

According to The New York Times, Ford will stop all national social media advertising for 30-days. Per Pathmatics, Ford spent $1,477,452 on Facebook advertising during July 2019. On Instagram the most recent available estimate from Pathmatics is from May 2020 which shows that Ford spent $825 on the platform. However, during April 2020 Pathmatics estimates for Instagram spending during the month was significantly higher at $19,470.

The Hershey Company

Per Business Insider, the chocolate maker plans to reduce how much it spends on Facebook advertising by one third for the rest of the year. Pathmatics estimates that from July 2019 through December 2019, Hershey spent $14,168,197 on paid Facebook ads. Most recently on Instagram the company spent $5,467,547 on paid ads during June 2020.

Hewlett-Packard

Earlier this week, HP said it would stop advertising on Facebook and Instagram until the social media giant took action against its brand appearing alongside “objectionable content.” According to Pathmatics data, during July 2019 the technology company spent roughly $4,671,544 on Facebook ads. As for Instagram, during June 2020, the company spent approximately $55,506 on Instagram ads. 

Levi Strauss

The famous jean maker is also joining the movement and will pause advertising on Facebook and Instagram through at least July. Pathmatics estimates that Levi’s spent $88,614 on paid advertising on Facebook during July 2019 and $2,079,150 on paid advertising on the platform from July 2019 through December 2019. As for Instagram, the most recent estimate available from Pathmatics is for May 2020 when the company spent approximately $369,152 on paid ads on the platform. 

Lululemon

The activewear brand also tweeted that it would join the campaign by pausing advertising on Facebook and Instagram. Pathmatics data found that during July 2019, Lululemon spent roughly $97,127 on Facebook ads and from July 2019 through December 2019 the company spent nearly $472,630 on ads on the platform. On Instagram, Pathmatics most recent data found that during June 2020 Lululemon spent nearly $10,088 on paid ads on the platform. 

The North Face

The company was one of the first major marketers to pull its advertising dollars from Facebook and Instagram. It plans to do so throughout July. Per Pathmatics estimates, The North Face spent nearly $1,063,875 on paid ads on Facebook during July 2019. When it comes to Instagram, Pathmatics most recent estimate is for June 2020 during which time The North Face spent roughly $21,043 on paid ads on the platform. 

Patagonia

The company also joined the movement early on, committing to removing paid ads from Facebook and Instagram through July. Per Pathmatics estimates, Patagonia spent $170,067 on paid advertising on Facebook during July 2019 and $3,251,582 on paid advertising on the platform from July 2019 through December 2019. The company’s most recent Instagram estimate for Patagonia’s paid ad spending is for May 2020 during which time Patagonia spent roughly $23,250 on paid ads on the platform. 

Patron

The alcohol brand also tweeted support and said it would halt advertising on Facebook and Instagram until the social media giant took action to curb hate speech on its platform. Pathmatics estimates that during July 2019, Patron spent $21,347 on paid ads on Facebook and that from July 2019 through December 2019 the company spent a total of approximately $342,645. As for Instagram, the most recent estimate from Pathmatics is from May 2020 when the company spent roughly $229,626 on paid ads.

Pfizer

The pharmaceutical giant also joined in by pausing advertising on Facebook and Instagram for July, according to The New York Times. Pathmatics estimates that the company spent $1,479,164 on Facebook ads during July 2019. On Instagram, Pfizer most recently spent roughly $498,603 on paid ads during the month of June 2020. 

Puma

The sportswear brand posted on Twitter that it would join in and stop advertising on Facebook and Instagram for the month of July. Per Pathmatics estimates, Puma spent $185,432 on Facebook ads during July 2019. Most recently on Instagram during June 2020, Puma spent roughly $297,604. 

REI

The outdoor retailer also joined the movement early on and committed to pulling advertising on Facebook and Instagram throughout July. Pathmatics estimates that REI spent $1,676,181 on Facebook ads during July 2019 and most recently on Instagram spent $8,028 on paid ads during June 2020.

SAP

Earlier this week, the company said it would stop advertising on Facebook and Instagram until the platform took action. Per Pathmatics data, SAP spent $590 on paid ads on Facebook during July 2019 and a total of $23,396 from July 2019 through December 2019. On Instagram, SAP spent $2,477 on paid ads during June 2020. 

Starbucks

In a statement Starbucks said it would pause advertising on social media “while we continue discussions internally, with our media partners and with civil rights organizations in the effort to stop the spread of hate speech.” Pathmatics data estimates that during July 2019, Starbucks spent $9,234,423 on paid ads on the platform and over the course of July 2019 through December 2019, the company spent $60,902,704 on paid ads. Most recently during June 2020 on Instagram, Starbucks spent roughly $1,161,221 on paid ads, per Pathmatics. 

Target

The retailer will also pause ads on Facebook and Instagram for the month of July. Per Pathmatics estimates, Target spent $2,888,706 on paid Facebook ads during July 2019. On Instagram, Target spent roughly $1,058,767 on paid ads during June 2020, according to Pathmatics.

Unilever

The packaged goods behemoth plans to sit out advertising on Facebook and Instagram through the rest of 2020. Per Pathmatics data, from July 2019 through December 2019 the company spent approximately $19,028,937 on paid ads on Facebook. As for Instagram, during June 2020, Unilever spent roughly $1,464,138 on paid ads. 

Vans’ parent company VF Corporation

The shoemaker plans to halt its advertising on Facebook and Instagram for July. Pathmatics estimates that during July 2019 Vans’ parent company VF Corporation spent $1,063,875 on paid ads. Pathmatics did not have recent data for Instagram immediately available for Vans.

Verizon

The communications giant plans to sit out advertising on Facebook and Instagram throughout July, according to CNBC. Pathmatics estimates that during July 2019, Verizon spent $771,942 on paid ads on Facebook. Most recently, during June 2020 the company spent roughly $507,249 on paid ads on Instagram.

Streaming viewership shift

Stuck at home, people spent more time watching TV — linear and streaming — than they did before the shelter-at-home orders hit. However, linear TV viewership has since ebbed to pre-March levels, while streaming viewership has remained high. 

In the first week of June, people spent 126.1 billion minutes streaming shows and movies, up 49% compared to the first week of June in 2019, according to Nielsen. That suggests that audiences have established new streaming habits since March that are likely to outlast the quarantine. 

Then consider the accelerated rate of people canceling their traditional pay-TV subscriptions in the first quarter of 2020: the pay-TV subscriber bases for Altice, AT&T, Comcast and Verizon shrunk by 11%, according to Rich Greenfield, a partner at research firm LightShed Partners. Therefore, even if audiences return to linear TV as live sports return, they may be just as likely to sign up for a streaming pay-TV service as a cable or satellite subscription, reinforcing the shift to streaming.

Upfront undone

TV advertising’s annual upfront marketplace had already outlived the era when advertisers could pick out prime-time TV shows months in advance and be rest assured the shows would deliver a large audience of potential customers. The upfronts will outlive the current economic downturn — but it won’t be the same.

As advertisers tried to squirrel away whatever money they could, they asked TV networks to be let out of their upfront commitments. Now, as the next round of upfront negotiations kick off, they are asking for more flexibility to be written into their deal terms, such as the option to cancel a larger portion of their committed dollars closer to when a quarter begins. 

TV networks have their own businesses to consider, though. If they don’t know how much advertising revenue they will be sure to receive in a given quarter, they may be pressed to pay less for the programming that attracts the audiences that advertisers are after. If that were to happen, it may only push more people to tune out traditional TV and into the arms of the surging streaming services.

Streaming wars’ battlefield expands

The streaming wars have centered on companies like Disney and WarnerMedia duking it out with Netflix for people’s subscription budgets. That battle is still being fought, with 41% of streaming subscribers canceling at least one subscription during the first quarter of 2020, per research firm Parks Associates. However, there is another battle underway on the ad-supported front. 

While Hulu and YouTube have dominated the ad-supported streaming market for years, Amazon and Roku have been building up their connected TV ad businesses, including their own ad-supported streaming properties like Amazon’s IMDb TV and Roku’s The Roku Channel. And the TV companies are no longer treating streaming as a side business. Disney, Fox, NBCUniversal and ViacomCBS each now own ad-supported streaming services that are not tethered to their pay-TV businesses.

This leveling of the playing field among pure-play streamers, CTV platforms and TV networks — combined with the streaming viewership surge — will likely lead to more money moving from linear TV to streaming, and staying there.

Short-form’s small market

Quibi founder Jeffrey Katzenberg has blamed coronavirus for the mobile video app’s disappointing debut. But Quibi’s struggles likely have more to do with the market it’s in than people being out of the office.

Quibi is not the first company to try to get people to pay to watch short-form programming. Verizon’s now-defunct Vessel and YouTube, through YouTube Red, have tried and failed. Meanwhile, Verizon’s Go90 couldn’t get people to tune in despite giving its app away for free. 

That’s not to say there isn’t audience for high-quality short-form shows. Snapchat has more than 60 short-form shows that attracted at least 10 million viewers each month in the first quarter of 2020. Given Snapchat’s success and Quibi’s failure so far, the issue seems to be that viewers aren’t interested enough in short-form shows to install an app specifically for that purpose, not to mention to pay to watch them.

Production on pause

The shutdown of physical production may have as lasting an impact as any other effect of the coronavirus on the future of TV. TV networks’ and streaming services’ programming plans have been disrupted and producers have had to adapt to shooting shows remotely. Freelancers have been put out of work.

Even as companies prepare to return to production, they have to take precautions not only to protect talent and crews, but also have contingency plans in the event of another production shutdown. The stop and slow restart may seriously crimp networks’ and streamers’ programming pipelines. Considering that programming underpins the entire industry — content being king and all — that impact will have a wide-ranging ripple effect, the beginnings of which we will see in the back half of 2020.

Confessional

“We’ve probably seen two dozen flexibility framework options thrown at us. Half are unreasonable, and half are understandable.”

— TV network sales executive on advertisers’ flexibility demands

Stay tuned: Facebook ad boycott

Just as publishers’ social video ad revenue was rebounding, Facebook’s failure to police what people say on its platform may put the recovery in reverse.

Many major advertisers, including Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Unilever, have said they will stop advertising on Facebook, and in some cases other platforms, for at least the next month. The advertisers are halting their social ad buying in an attempt to pressure Facebook, and in some cases other platforms, to do a better job controlling hate speech (and definitely not because it gives them cover to save money during an economic downturn).

Hard to say at this point how exactly this will affect the money publishers make from the videos they distribute on Facebook and other platforms; most of the boycotts don’t seem to take effect until today (July 1). But it probably isn’t a positive development since these advertisers are more brand-oriented and therefore more likely to buy Facebook’s video inventory than the small- and medium-sized advertisers that make up the bulk of Facebook’s ad business and primarily purchase static in-feed ads to get people to visit their sites and buy their products.

There could be a silver lining though. Some of these advertisers may be less inclined to put their money where their mouth is and looking for ways to side-step their pledges to boycott Facebook. As a result, they may be surreptitiously seeking out sponsorship opportunities in publishers’ videos as a way to continue to reach people on Facebook without giving money to Facebook.

Numbers don’t lie

$65: New price of YouTube TV, a $15 hike after adding ViacomCBS channels.

59: Number of original programs that will premiere on Netflix in July, according to The Verge.

41%: Share of streaming subscribers that canceled a subscription during the first quarter of 2020, according to research firm Parks Associates.

What we’ve covered

Inside Bleacher Report’s staff revolt that toppled a CEO:

• The disparity between B/R’s mostly white leadership and its Black employees has reached a breaking point.
• Current and former B/R employees describe the systemic inequality that Black employees have had to deal with.

Read more about Bleacher Report here.

Ad buyers assess publishers’ video studios:

• Ad buyers remain divided on whether publishers with video studios should be top of mind when spending their clients’ video advertising budgets.
• The appeal of publishers’ video offerings is not audience, but the brand loyalty they command and the ability to be nimble and flexible.

Read more about publishers’ video studios here.

Inside TikTok’s revamped pitch to advertisers:

• TikTok is stressing its deviation from the way older rivals have gone to market with promises to be more transparent on the performance of its ads.
• TikTok has distilled its pitch into five key points.

Read more about TikTok here.

IGTV is becoming YouTube stars’ alternative platform of choice:

• IGTV has begun making inroads among YouTube talent, thanks to Instagram’s overall popularity and the relatively light lift required to produce an IGTV video.
• It helps that Instagram has funded some creators’ IGTV videos and is now testing a monetization program.

Read more about IGTV here.

What we’re reading

Disney cuts the cord:
After failing to reach carriage agreements with a couple U.K. pay-TV providers, Disney has opted to shut down its British kids TV channels, according to Deadline. This is an overseas example, but it could cross the pond and become more common. Major TV network groups, including Disney, NBCUniversal, WarnerMedia and ViacomCBS, now have their own standalone streaming services. As much as the networks don’t want to say their streamers offer ripcords to exit the pay-TV business whenever they may need to, that is exactly what these services are and exactly what Disney has done.

Amazon Prime Video adding more 24/7 streaming channels:
Amazon has posted a number of job listings for roles related to live streaming channels on Prime Video, according to Protocol. As Variety pointed out, Amazon’s subscription-based streamer already has 24/7 streaming channels, and The Wall Street Journal and Digiday reported last year that Amazon planned to add 24/7 streaming channels to ad-supported IMDb TV. But, while none of this is all that new, the job listing that describes this as “Day 1 for the linear TV experience on Prime Video” suggests that Amazon may have bigger ambitions for its TV business.

TikTok’s influencer management ecosystem:
A cottage industry is emerging around TikTok stars. Traditional talent agencies, talent managers and upstart influencer marketing firms are vying to sign the next Charli D’Amelio, so Business Insider created a database to map out which agents and managers represent which influencers.

Patagonia was one of the first global companies to join the Stop Hate for Profit campaign to defund Facebook in all its markets a week ago. Since then others like Adidas, Verizon and Coca-Cola have made similar moves, though not always as part of the campaign and not always completely off Facebook. For example, The North Face has paused campaigns in the U.S., but continues to run them elsewhere, in markets like Canada, Germany and New Zealand.

While each of these advertisers is united in the rationale behind their stance against Facebook, the clarity of their demands vary. For Patagonia, the social network must take clear steps over the next month to show it can no longer profit from hate speech otherwise it will take its dollars elsewhere. Last year, the advertiser spent $6.2 million on paid ads on Facebook, per research firm Pathmatics.

Digiday caught up with Weller to hear more about Patagonia’s demands of Facebook, and ask where the brand’s Facebook’s media dollars go if it won’t comply, and more.

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Why has Patagonia decided now is the time to defund Facebook?  

It’s a stance that’s been building over time but we’ve reached a threshold for tolerance of the dissemination of hate speech on the platform, as well as the resistance to address a fundamentally flawed business model. There have been a lot of catalysts for driving change on Facebook over the last few months and certainly the last month. And yet those catalysts for change haven’t amounted to much. We can’t continue to actively support and feel good about investing our resources into that business.

What does the Patagonia want Facebook to change before the end of July?

We want to see Facebook make policy changes to ensure that its business model can no longer profit from hate, racism, anti-Semitism, climate denialism and the undermining of civil and human rights. We also want to see them commit to accuracy on political and voting matters globally. Finally, we want to see a commitment to regular, independent third-party audits that ensure total transparency on these matters now and in the future.

Will you remain off Facebook if those demands aren’t met? 

We’re committed to stopping hate for profit on Facebook and will stay the course. We’re prepared to stand by that commitment for as long as it takes.

What happens to the money that was due to go to Facebook?

We’ve always thought carefully about the company we keep when it comes to working with media owners and digital platforms. When we work with those businesses the biggest factor for us is how we’re able to use them to reach and mobilize communities around environmental issues, which not only underpins our mission but also makes our current decision to step away from Facebook a challenging one. We’ve always thought carefully about the companies we buy media from, but this is an opportunity for us to take even more thoughtful approach about how we invest our resources to reach communities and engage with real people on the issues that matter most to us a company. It is definitely an opportunity for us to think harder about the company we want to keep. Doing so gives us an opportunity to innovate and test new ways of working with media. 

Does that include looking at how you buy programmatic ads?

Everything is on the table during these incredibly dynamic times. As long as we’re clear that the work we do and the companies we work with are in service to our mission in delivering environmental action and allow our customer communities to mobilize around those issues and take action, then we’ll consider our partnerships. This moment in time presents a myriad of opportunities for us to continue to challenge ourselves as a business.

Is this a safe time to be without one of your biggest media channels? 

There have been a lot of convergent factors that have taken us, and many other businesses, to the point of being off Facebook. One of those factors is not to do with the fact that this is an easy time to pull media spend. July, as a lot of critics have pointed out, is a soft month for advertising, but that’s not why we decided to act now. 

What impact is the boycott having on Patagonia’s business?             

The company has decided not to buy paid ads on Facebook and Instagram in all our markets. There will, however, be a limited number of organic posts about our environmental campaigning we post on those platforms. Facebook and Instagram are not only one of our main advertising platforms in terms of budget but also in terms of how we talk to our customer communities around environmental action, which both underpins our decision but also make it a challenging one. Being off those platforms has an impact on the business, but it’s one of many things we’re navigating, not least a global health pandemic. We’re not going to get too distracted on the financial impact of our decision on Facebook. The financials weren’t a box that we checked when made it. We did it because it was the right thing to do. 

Can you point to any specific examples the boycott has had on the business?            

We use Facebook to financially support the online campaigns of environmental grassroots non-profit organizations across Europe. Those organizations are somewhat dependent on our support in the space and we’re not going to be able to do that for a period of time. We’re working with those organizations to find alternative ways to support them while we’re off Facebook. 

Now Kennedy — who has written about Netflix’s “Ugly Delicious” and food media controversies surrounding Alison Roman and the Bon Appetit Test Kitchen — has more than 3,000 subscribers for her newsletter, more than 400 of whom pay $5 a month or $30 a year for a bonus Friday Q&A. The income means that Substack now functions as Kennedy’s “anchor” gig, freelancer parlance for the recurring job that ensures you can pay the bills.

Kennedy is part of a growing class of newsletter entrepreneurs on Substack. Founded in 2017, the company allows writers to build their own paid subscription businesses, taking a 10% cut of revenue (in addition to Stripe’s transaction fee for payments). Most coverage of Substack has focused on the coterie of writers newslettering full-time who earn salaries rivaling mainstream jobs, but the chaos of the current media moment has widened the platform’s appeal. New writers have joined and different business strategies, such as bundles, are forming. 

As the media ecosystem contracts amid coronavirus, Substack has been thrust into an uncomfortable role — that of a savior. And as more writers go solo, the question has emerged as to whether Substack can become the kind of monetization system that never materialized during the last major internet writer-driven movement, the halcyon days of the early blogging era of the 2000s.

“We live in a world where we’ve lost the alt weekly and the small publication. The barriers to entry at the mainstream publications entry are high. The rates are terrible,” Kennedy said. When it comes to Substack, “It was necessary that something like this happened.”

Substack sees itself as a business, not a savior. Last summer, the company raised a $15.3 million round led by Andreesen Horowitz. “We’re coming in with an opportunity-focused mindset,” said co-founder Hamish McKenzie. “During the first 20-30 years of the internet, in terms of information distribution and media, the innovation has mostly come around an ad-supported model. There’s a whole 20-30 years of innovation to come that more fully innovates around a subscription model.”

The company on Tuesday called for applications for one “senior fellow” on Substack, who will receive a $100,000 grant, and four other fellows, who will receive a $3,000 stipend and $25,000 advance (recouped by Substack through increased revenue sharing).

Substack enjoys a growing profile in the media industry, but it’s not a consumer brand. The company is fine with that. Substack wants to be behind the scenes, taking its cut as writers interact with their devoted readers. More than 100,000 subscribers pay writers on Substack, according to the company.

For top writers like Luke O’Neil, Substack has been a boon. O’Neil said he is projected to gross more than $100,000 annually for his popular newsletter Hell World, a unique fusion of stream-of-consciousness writing and reporting about the harrowing nature of American life. O’Neil began his newsletter as he was on the outs with Esquire, his main freelance job. Gaining a few hundred paying subscribers after only a few months, O’Neil realized his newsletter could be a worthy full-time pursuit.

An acerbic writer and tweeter, he enjoys working for himself, especially after a career of clashing with the higher-ups. O’Neil once wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed that his biggest regret in life was “not pissing in Bill Kristol’s salmon” when he waited on the conservative pundit. The Globe pulled the column. “The idea of being able to do it with no bosses is really appealing to someone like me,” O’Neil said. “For other people, I think it might be scary, because a lot of reporters are nerds and cops at heart.”

O’Neil encourages writers to give Substack a try. “Maybe you only get 150 subscribers and it doesn’t work out. OK, no big deal. We’re all working constantly for free all the time anyways,” he said. “Let’s say all you can get is 100 people subscribing giving you $5 a month. For most freelance journalists, $500 a month is something.”

As more writers join the platform, he doesn’t think there is necessarily a subscription bubble for newsletters. “You pay $10 a month for Spotify and you get every band that’s ever existed. That’s good for the consumer. Or you can pay $10 to buy one album off Bandcamp, and that’s a different kind of transaction,” he said of the platform that allows music lovers to directly support their favorite artists. “[People] feel good about giving people they like money so they can continue to make stuff they like.”

Bundle Up

Although Substack is disaggregated, some writers are already figuring out how to bundle their newsletters — or considering doing so. Group enough newsletters together and what’s left is, effectively, a blog or magazine. 

In April, Nathan Baschez (writer of Divinations) and Dan Shipper (Superorganizers) together created a third Substack called Everything, a bundle allowing subscribers to sign up for both of their newsletters. Within the first month, they grew together from 600 to 1,000 paying subscribers (the cost of the bundle is now $20 a month or $200 a year). “We’ve structured this as a company,” Shipper said. Now, Everything is signing on like-minded writers, like Tiago Forte, who keep a majority of the monthly recurring revenue that they can generate for the bundle. The result is that Everything has become, effectively, a new business publication built on Substack. “I think we’re discovering all the things that made magazines awesome,” Baschez said. Everything has joined the ranks of other news organizations forming on Substack, the first of which was the Dispatch, a conservative politics site that now has about 10,000 paying subscribers.

On the other side of the political spectrum, O’Neil said he has spoken with lefty writers about creating a one-stop digest of multiple newsletters. While not finalized, one of the other players in those talks is Discourse Blog, a collection of eight former writers for Splinter, the political website shuttered in 2019 by G/O Media. Discourse Blog has more than 3,000 free subscribers, according to Jack Mirkinson, a member of the group and Splinter’s former deputy editor. In April, the project switched from WordPress to Substack in order to more easily launch a paid option starting July 6, Mirkinson said.

The new structure has granted the bloggers more editorial freedom, though for now it’s basically  a labor of love. “If we were still at Splinter, we would have to be listening to everything that Trump says at all times, because that’s where the mandate of having a news website in a corporate context drives you. [Now, we have] the ability to try to make a new model, to try to figure out a totally different relationship to the audience, and a totally different relationship to the day-to-day mechanics of putting out a website,” Mirkinson said. “I don’t think anyone could look at the media landscape right now and not just beg for a different route out of the chaos and misery.”

Some Substack writers have sought to monetize through methods other than subscriptions. Delia Cai, who works as a growth editor at BuzzFeed for her day job, writes the newsletter Deez Links, offering a round-up of media news, commentary, and Q&As with professionals. The newsletter has more than 5,600 subscribers, and Cai intends to keep the product free for now. She has tried selling merchandise, but found it to be a difficult business (her Deez Links pins were held up in China for two months because of coronavirus).

“I’m still really looking for exposure and trying to get people to notice me for my writing and hot takes,” Cai said. “I know that if I, God forbid, lose my job tomorrow, the first thing I would do is to go to Substack and turn the paid subscriptions on.” For now, Cai has teamed with Study Hall, a freelancer community and newsletter, to offer classified ads, beginning at $100 per week across both properties. 

Blogging days

For those who were around to experience it, the dive back into newsletters has felt a lot like the 2000s internet, where writers honed their voices on a loose network of blogs. Everything was free. Many writers later found jobs in the mainstream media and in some cases the properties they created, like Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, were subsumed by larger media conglomerates. 

This time, the economics are different. “I got interested in the blogosphere when it first started in 2004. I just sort of jumped in, and I was mostly interested in the potential to be fast and be part of the conversation,” said Judd Legum, who founded the progressive political blog ThinkProgress (where I interned in 2012). In July 2018, Legum branched out with his own Substack, Popular Information, a political newsletter that now has 113,000 total subscribers. He earns “well into six figures,” according to the New York Times, from paid subscribers. 

Legum said that writers are more entrepreneurial with their newsletters than they were with their blogs. He, for instance, has turned down freelance work, which might pay between $500 and $1,000 an article, because it makes more sense to self publish. A recent newsletter with two political scoops garnered 72 new paid subscribers in one day, Legum said. “As a lot of tech startups know, recurring monthly revenue is a good model. There’s stability to it. It’s better than advertising, when for the most part every month you start at zero and you’ve got to build up your pageviews,” Legum said. 

Substack has an eye toward the blogging era, too, betting this time that there has been a shift in the culture. Readers today, they hope, are willing to pay for internet writing. “From a business standpoint, there was this land grab for everyone’s attention,” said Substack co-founder Chris Best. “The people who ended up winning that game weren’t bloggers, unfortunately. It was Facebook.”

Substack isn’t the only player that has sought to figure out small-scale publishing in the platform dominance era. Medium, for instance, has been home to a rotating roster of small publications, but has pivoted often and failed to emerge as the media force many once hoped it would be. Best said Substack’s main focus is the connection between an individual and that person’s audience. Its pitch to writers is that they have complete control over everything — from their content to their distribution lists (there are some limits, like a minimum fee structure of $5 per month if you want to switch to a paid model).

With the wider industry in a period of crisis, Substack has entered into a new phase. The first phase, Best said, was to attract writers with existing audiences to move to Substack. Now Substack wants to bring on new voices. As for products like bundles, Best said it should be driven by writers, not the company itself. 

One thing that Substack does promise: no ads, ever. “Any time you’re doing ads, it’s all about the lowest common denominator of engagement: clicks,” Best said.

But how the practice is viewed by publishers is changing as there are more ways to drive up inventory without hampering user experience and performance, like viewability.

Each new impression served after a given time frame generates incremental revenue for publishers. Most exchanges and vendors combine other refresh triggers with time elapsed, like user action (mouse movements and scroll depth), content change or a combination. But it’s a fine balance for publishers. While ad refresh can increase publisher inventory, after the first impression is served it can decrease viewability and click-through-rate—eventually hurting publisher revenue. 

Tight programmatic ad market conditions mean that publishers are naturally looking for ways to push harder on revenue generation. In May, display ad revenue (excluding social and video) in Europe was down between 25-28% on the prior year, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau. In the U.S., CPMs on open web display ads were 34% lower than original forecasts for the period between April and May, according to the IAB U.S. Mat Bennet, managing director at OKO, which helps publishers monetize ads, has seen an increase of interest from publishers in refreshing. And tech vendor Automatad has seen demand for its ad refresh product increase substantially, with 35% of its existing publisher clients signing up to it since the coronavirus outbreak began.  

“Advertisers are really against it. Revenue wise it’s amazing,” said Emily Roberts, BBC Global News programmatic trading manager for Europe, Middle East and Africa. Still, BBC Global News doesn’t refresh ads. “If you have multiple sizes in refresh it can make the experience for readers quite bad as the page is constantly jumping around,” added Roberts.

That’s the rub. Ad refreshing, especially automatic ad refreshing, carries a stigma since publishers historically used it to prioritize revenue over user experience. The added load can slow down pages. As such, ad refresh still falls into a category of revenue-generating practices that have shady connotations, like content recommendation widgets and autoplay video.  

“Stop refreshing ads on your page,” wrote Ryan McConaghy in his May 20 Last Week In Adops newsletter. “I don’t care what sorts of tests you try to show me, refreshing ads make each incremental ad less effective, period…It makes your ads less effective. Buyers don’t like it, readers don’t like it. Isn’t that enough?”

Ad buyers have mostly viewed ad refreshing with vexation. Ad refreshing practices aren’t standardized, although Google created standards in its exchange in 2016 which some have followed. Not all vendors declare whether the ad is refreshed or when, after the first impression, each subsequent impression is served.

“Ad refreshing is annoying but is managed by the SSPs, they all have slightly different policies in what the allow publishers to do,” said Matthew McIntyre, vp, programmatic Europe, Middle East and Africa at agency Essence. “We don’t have any controls to see when we have bought refreshed inventory or to stop buying it on the open exchange.”

Cutting off the call-to-action in a direct response campaign could harm the performance, but for brand building campaigns the potential impact would be less, he added. 

Ads that appear later in the refresh sequence may not be subject to accidental clicks — good news as Google’s ‘confirmed clicks’ is causing headaches for publishers and advertisers — so they could perform fine for objectives like brand lift, recall or conversions. 

“The best-case scenario is we’re clear on what’s happening,” said Zenith’s head of programmatic, Matt Bushby. “Either the DSP offers that targeting option for us or the publisher shares that insight on what triggers it’s based on.”

As long as one of the triggers to refreshing is time spent in view then viewability is protected in spite of ad refreshing, which has been a common concern. Automatad sets ad refreshing every 25 seconds of active time in view. After analyzing 150 sites over three months it found that viewability increased on average by 48%. 

Nathan Chase, co-founder of U.S. movie-ranking site Flickchart said using ad refresh from Automatad increased incremental ad revenue by over 100% (also helped by access to top-tier bidding partners via Automatad) and viewability of the ad units being refreshed increased by 27%.

“[Automatad] helped us rethink our ad placements, offered us ad layout flexibility and customization [and] were cognizant of our unique site mechanic requirements,” he said. 

U.K. publisher Serious About Rugby League increased ad viewability by 23% in the first two months of using the vendor’s header bidding wrapper and refresh tech.

“Done well it is an easy win for most,” said OKO’s Bennett. “As with most things monetization, the advice is ‘results may vary, but it is worth testing.’”