Oxford Road’s Marketers Guide to Brand Safety

By Dan Granger

This week, we provide marketers with a step-by-step guide to navigating this complex world, and provide tools for coming out of such situations with minimal public backlash and their values intact. Save this one. If you are a performance marketer at scale, you’re going to need it as we enter one of the most contentious election years in American History.

From now until next year’s Presidential Election, advertisers on politically oriented programs should expect increasing scrutiny, spontaneously finding themselves stuck in the middle of controversy when on-air talent strikes a nerve and offends one group or another. Last week’s incident with Michael Knowles is a perfect case in point.

Let’s say you were an advertiser on Michael Knowles podcast or on Fox News, who had him as a guest on The Story. Here’s how you’d find out about the gathering storm. You would receive an email—from a seemingly credible media outlet, blog, or group—seeking comment about your intention to continue your existing relationship with Knowles or Fox News. Often times, there’s a deadline for you to make a comment before your brand name is released on a list. That list will be used by an angry constituency that is poised to begin contacting you and others at your company—accusing you of supporting the beliefs of the offending party.

Usually, the host’s words are taken somewhat out of context, but it doesn’t matter because the optics are bad and you wish they had made their point differently. You are tempted to respond to the email. However, real customers are rarely involved. Usually you will start to receive pressure from within your company. Questions start flying at you about why you would ever consider affiliating your brand with programs that so clearly do not represent the values your company represents. All the pressure to hit growth and CAC goals are out the window and now you must respond—or so it seems. All of this has happened in a matter of hours. It is at this precise moment that you must ignore your impulses to act and take a moment to pause amidst the immense amount of pressure and judgment surrounding you.

Instead of following your emotions…

Here’s what you need to do:

Address Internal Stakeholders – In a timely and considered way, assure all stakeholders that you appreciate the gravity of the situation and your commitment to taking proper action. Affirm your commitment to company values and get buy-in from anxious team members who will be tempted to speak publicly before an appropriate response can be considered.
Say Nothing Publicly – No matter how tempting it might be, don’t even acknowledge the email or call you receive from watchdog organizations or any media outlet that contacts you. Anything you say publicly can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. This is true for both the third-parties that are pressuring you to make a statement or take an action, as well as the fans of the personality that caused the offense. You will feel like you owe them a response or statement and they know it. You do not. In fact, there is no long-term benefit in issuing a fast response. This is perceived but not real. Immediately following your awareness of the perceived offensive comment, do and say NOTHING. Speaking out will invite unwanted exposure and potential backlash. Just ask Keurig.
Immediately “Pause” Your Media Investment – You have to watch, listen or read the content that caused the controversy in full. To do that, you need time. You have facts to gather and context to consider. To do this objectively, you will want to contact your media agency or the program or network immediately. Assure them that you are making no immediate decisions and issuing no public statements. Provide the media partner a minimum timetable for suspension of your campaign. 2-4 weeks is an appropriate amount of time for a proper evaluation.
Gather Facts and Think Deeply – You have protected yourself from continued exposure and assured your stakeholders that you will properly evaluate. So now is the time for due diligence. Imagine if someone had walked into your office and attributed the soundbite in question to one of your team members or key vendors. You should handle this situation similarly. To do that, you need to hear from people representing both sides of the issue and see how it is affecting them. Listen deeply to how the words may have been hurtful to people on your team. If your customers have been impacted, hear their stories. Maybe the person who gave offense holds views that represent the unspoken values of other stakeholders who do not share those values publicly. Consider them too. Examine their channel’s impact on your business. Consider the cost of a permanent severance from the relationship and what the consequence would be to the people who work with you if you cut off this stream of revenue. Talk to others who have navigated these waters in the past and learn from their successes and failures. You must not simply react to the vocal minority, you need to consider every side of the issue.
Layout All Your Options – It’s easy to forget that you have many options beyond stay or go. Once you’ve taken in all of the information, decide if the perceived offense deserves action. If so, your options include:

Withdraw sponsorship until further notice: There is no rule that says you must close the door permanently. You can, however, decide that you don’t see an immediate path to the reinstatement of your campaign and take appropriate action. Again, quietly is best.
Terminate the relationship permanently: If you have weighed the offense and believe that your company mission calls you to take a side and have weighed the costs associated with permanent separation, notify the necessary stakeholders. Avoid emotional responses and stay matter of fact, leaning on the incongruity of your values with a continued relationship with the individual in question. This is the most extreme action and should only be considered in the most extreme circumstances.
Return Immediately: If you believe the controversy was taken out of context or that the personality did nothing out of step with your company values, you can go back right away. Again, no public statement about this will benefit you.
Wait it out: If you don’t believe the offense was worthy of any action one way or another, let the news cycle pass—anywhere from 24 hours to one week—then continue as planned per your “Pause.”
Offer a Probationary Relationship: You have the right to not take any further action beyond your temporary withdrawal. However, if you do believe that the offense was a violation of your values or unnecessarily harmful but that they can be let off with a warning, then tell them so. Talk to the personality directly or at least alert the executive team that represents them that future instances of this nature may result in permanent separation. You can even request they consider some measure of goodwill or action to demonstrate a willingness to consider the feelings of those they have hurt, even if they disagree on a core issue. Typically these hurt feelings are the result of the way something was communicated, not necessarily the position held by either party.
Pick up the Bat Phone What if you may have trouble getting out of a contract? What if your stakeholders are divided on what to do? What if the offending channel drives a high volume of sales and there is ambiguity around the nature of the offense. When the stakes are high and you need a professional to see you through, contact the Cambridge Negotiation Institute.

6. DECIDE – This may be less obvious than it seems. In almost every instance where separation occurs between the brand and talent in a relationship, it is done under compulsion from a third party. The reality is, this third party is not responsible for your goals or your mission as a brand. It would be a shame if you were to take an action that is too fast or too permanent all because you were bullied into doing so—yet this is often the path that brands choose. We all want to save face. But when you rush to judgment, you turn over your authority to less invested third parties who are operating with different motives than your own. This is your business, not theirs. Don’t let them tell you who you will do business with or how you go about finding new customers or sharing your values with the world. This is your decision, so take time and then decide for yourself.

One final thought. Most people will not follow the advice provided here and it will cost them a lot of money. But no amount of money is worth feeling like you’ve sold your soul and caved on your convictions. You have to make a choice that helps you sleep at night. There is a better path that no one ever considers—invest in the relationship with the offending talent with aggression, not passivity. The reason you found yourself in this predicament is that you leveraged the influence of an influencer. The most powerful asset in the world of marketing is tapping into the trust that flows between a media Influencer and their tribe. The moment you terminate that relationship, you have reduced your own influence with that tribe as well as their leader.

But what if you could influence the Influencer? What if you had the courage to speak directly to the talent who caused the offense? Not with judgment, but bringing the reality of their comments to their doorstep for the purpose of reconciliation. If you are not too hasty, with a spirit of humility, you could share with them the human impact of the words they used. By taking this approach they will be far more likely to listen, learn, and change their behavior.

We do not elevate the public discourse when we run to another corner and point the finger. We do not advance our cause when we part ways. The world is not as black and white as people on both sides would make it seem. To behave as if that is the case is to reinforce that misconception and deepen the divide. But if you remain engaged in the relationship, despite your differences, you might be able to make a positive impact on Influencers and the world—just like your company’s mission statement likely proclaims.

Perhaps you could be the first to demonstrate cooperation to extend the mission and values that you hold dear, even when that means working with people who think differently or who do not always say things the right way. Which of us has not said something we regret and then defended something indefensible under the heated lamp of another’s judgment? But when confronted by a friend—seeking to restore, not destroy—we all are able to soften. I can think of no more powerful way to benefit your company or the growing divide in this country than to address these problems directly while keeping the relationship intact. As a marketer, you steward tremendous influence over the nature of discourse in this country but only through your active, NOT reactive, involvement.

The question is…Do you have the courage to confront without judgment? Might they respect you because you were not like the others? Can you have a disagreement while maintaining respect?

We have enough polarization in this country. There is enough judgment on both sides. You have the power to proactively drive positive change and use these moments of controversy to unite people and expand the influence of your values—if you would only take a different approach.

Go forth and spend your influence wisely.

—

For additional resources on this topic, please see The Influencer’s previous articles addressing different aspects of this topic, including, A HOUSE DIVIDED WILL NOT BRAND and DON’T BECOME A VICTIM OF THE “OTHER” TRADE WAR.

Our position on doing our part to heal the divide in this country through our approach to marketing has also garnered some media attention, including, THE WILKOW MAJORITY on SiriusXM, Business Radio by The Wharton School and Closer Look with Rose Scott on NPR.

Podcast Loses A Friend

On Sunday night, Podcast lost a Founding Father.

Norm Pattiz, the architect of modern Network Radio who launched Westwood One in 1976 and pivoted to create Podcast One in 2013, passed away at 79.

Like most Founding Fathers, Pattiz’s career was marked by the complexity of great deeds while daring greatly, enjoying the spoils, and of stories of a high-flying media mogul from a bygone era colliding with the values and expectations of our modern world.

Tributes this week describe Norm as a “Pioneer,” “Innovator,” “Charismatic,” “Imaginative,” “Showman,” “Unstoppable,” “Always trying new things,” “Could see around corners,” “Crazy about his wife, Mary,” “Revolutionary.”

Beyond his defining contributions to the radio and later podcast industries, Norm was chairman of the board of Lawrence Livermore and on the board of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. He was appointed by President Clinton to the United States Broadcasting Board of Governors and reappointed by President Bush in 2002. In 2009 he was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame.

Norm was a staple at Laker Games, always sitting Courtside across from Nicholson wearing something audacious, often attracting nearly as much attention as the players.

At the time of publication, the author remembers Norm Pattiz as a friend.

But it didn’t start that way.

It was 2012, and after six years of poking at the budding universe of on-demand audio, I was looking for a way in. I served as a foot soldier in Clear Channel’s army (now iHeartMedia), selling and managing local radio campaigns. I knew the field was ripe for disruption and believed to my core that Podcast would be the answer, and I couldn’t find a way to make a living at it.

Then I met Adam Carolla. He was doing a hit on a local radio broadcast to plug his new podcast venture in a studio a stone’s throw away from my desk. He was the first household name to leave traditional media behind and go all in on the new platform. And he was right down the hall at Clear Channel. So I waited until he finished and pitched to get permission to sell sponsors into his show as he walked to his car.

We ran a few tests, and the ads worked like magic for our clients.

Along with my trusted associates Gary Brown and Miranda Romano (still key leaders at Oxford Road), we began a cold outreach campaign to any podcasters with enough published reviews on apple to suggest a marketable audience. Then I saw the headline that former radio colleague Kit Gray had teamed up with Radio Industry Titan, Norm Pattiz, to launch a new venture organizing an independent network to turn this fledgling forum for audio hobbyists into an entire industry.

When Norm Pattiz entered the podcast arena, it was a shot across the bow. He locked up Adam Carolla in a representation contract as the cornerstone of his new network. Despite our efforts, there was no getting around Norm Pattiz and PodcastOne.

I had heard stories about Norm, the radio legend, and I instantly believed they were all true the moment we met. He was intimidating. Like the legends of old Hollywood powerbrokers who might say, “You’ll never work in this town again” if you crossed them. His assistant would call you and say she had Norm Pattiz on the line. But when we spoke about the business, he was focused, measured, and saw imaginative paths to a win-win.

I accepted the new reality without any alternative options, and we started conducting business in good faith.

Norm always delivered. He and his team worked with us to ensure client objectives were met while adding a pinch of old-fashioned Hollywood razzle-dazzle. The guy had first-class taste and the resources to create experiences that caused bonds to form between Network, Talent, Agency, and Client. The consummate showman, he taught me how we could do serious business and still have some fun. He had a bit of PT Barnum in him and modeled ways to stand out in an industry I’m still trying to digest. He was also funny and enough of a rascal that age wasn’t a burier to the relationship.

Norm was not for everybody, but he was definitely for me. He has his fingerprints on the success of our agency and supported us as we rose from a struggling startup to the leading independently owned audio agency in the world. Over time, I got to know Norm better. I respected what he was able to achieve in our industry and found him very accessible in giving me advice on what it meant to run a business.

He made his way into my heart most deeply as a true friend to Oxford Road and me in a time of need. After a few years of meteoric growth at Oxford Road, we entered a season of growing pains that introduced new challenges I had never experienced. Norm ended up on my business 911 list and graciously guided me out of some jams, for which I’ll be eternally grateful.

Norm Pattiz believed in me. He would invite me to guest on shows and panels. When the pandemic hit, I started a new podcast for marketers to help guide them through uncharted waters. Lke many partners, Norm came on the show as an early guest when we didn’t have the audience to justify his time. Not only did he come on, he also contacted me after and invited us to join his network, knowing full well our niche focus would never be a real money maker. That’s why today Media Roundtable is part of the PodcastOne network.

Norm was a visionary. Like Cornelius Vanderbilt moving from shipping to rail at 70, he left the industry where he had made his fortune because could see change was in the air. Podcast would disrupt Radio and become the digital beachhead to revitalize the industry, and he saw that years before his radio peers.

Pioneers are generally complex people, and Norm Pattiz was no exception. But if you want a revolution, you need to accept complex people as friends. Hopefully, they’ll accept your complexities too.

If you work in the podcast industry or even listen to podcasts, you should know that Norm Pattiz was the first true Captain of Industry to step onto the field. In his final act, he rolled up his sleeves and poured the concrete for the roads we’re now walking on.

Norm positively impacted millions of people, and I will raise my hand and say he made my life better through his generosity, wisdom, and friendship.

Farewell, my friend. May your voice forever echo.

Dan

Oxford Road's Path to Brand Safety & Suitability

By Dan Granger

One of your first jobs as a marketer is to follow the marketer’s version of the Hippocratic oath–to do no harm to your brand. But your other job is to grow, and these directives can easily come into conflict. Advertising on politically-oriented shows or leveraging hosts with strong followings can be a way to capture attention in a crowded space. But that also exposes your brand to the controversies that the hosts and their guests can create.

You don’t have to look far back to have an example of how these controversies go for advertisers. Here’s what you’re likely to expect.

First, the host or guest says something controversial that a specific group wants to call out.

Next, you would receive an email—from a seemingly credible media outlet, blog, or group—seeking comment about your intention to continue your existing relationship with the program. Oftentimes, there’s a deadline for you to make a comment before your brand name is released on a list. That list will be used by a constituency who will contact you and others at your company—accusing you of supporting the beliefs of the offending party.

Usually, the host’s words are taken somewhat out of context, but it doesn’t matter because the optics are bad and you wish they had made their point differently. You are tempted to respond to the email. However, real customers are rarely involved. Usually you will start to receive pressure from within your company. Questions start flying at you about why you would ever consider affiliating your brand with programs that so clearly do not represent the values your company represents. All the pressure to hit growth and CAC goals are out the window and now you must respond—or so it seems. All of this has happened in a matter of hours. It is at this precise moment that you must ignore your impulses to act and take a moment to pause amidst the immense amount of pressure and judgment surrounding you.

Instead of following your emotions…Here’s what you need to do:

Address Internal Stakeholders
Say Nothing Publicly
Immediately “Pause” Your Media Investment
Gather Facts and Think Deeply
Lay Out All Your Options
DECIDE

One final note. Last year we began working with a company called Barometer to build a tool in order to proactively get ahead of this type of scenario. Powered by AI, Barometer is able to apply a Brand Safety & Suitability score by rating each episode and show using the GARM framework in order to determine the risk level of content. By looking through a host or shows track record you, as a brand marketer, are able to determine if the content they put out is consistent with your brand values and if it’s something you can feel confident sponsoring based on their track record.

As a brand marketer you don’t have hundred of hours in the day to listen to new shows you’re looking to test or to track episodes released by the hosts you’re currently choosing to sponsor. Barometer does this for you, all you have to do is sign up for an account and assign risk levels (no, low, medium, high) you are comfortable with across the 12 Risk adjacent elements GARM warns against. In a matter of second you have full transparency into the content of the show, can see potential issues flagged, and are able to make a data-backed decision as to whether or not you feel confident investing your brand dollars in a show.

Go forth and spend your influence wisely.

Contact Oxford Road Today

$5k is Not Enough

$5K is not enough budget to test into a new media channel. It might be enough to test a single tactic within an existing channel. The effectiveness of this is doubtful unless you have an incredibly high conversion rate from a low AOV, a free offering, or a top-of-funnel vanity metric (which is another topic altogether).

For the rest of the brands with revenue-based measures of success, a $5K budget is like using a drop of paint on a wall to determine its dried shade.

New media channels are a gamble. To balance risk and upside, structuring a test with an outcome in mind and spending as little as possible to understand the viability of a campaign, via both performance and scale is responsible.

Early in my customer acquisition career, I was so excited to test everything emerging under the sun. Back then I had to pass on most deals larger than five figures because my more experienced management did not see the upside of what I thought was a nominal risk. So, I had to stay under that figure or make a compelling case for anything greater.

Why? Because I chose not to focus on pushing what is working in favor of the shiny or grass is greener for further growth.

The greater budget freedom was not available to me because I struggled to put together a strategic rationale that explained why X was a better use of resources than Y.

I was ahead of the curve in quantifying funnels (or customer journey) and measuring performance, but could not explain why the gamble was worth a five-figure bet in a manner that demonstrated upside.

As a result, I spent too much time testing networks and platforms that did not have minimums. Hoping the immediate performance was close enough to our average performance to increase our investment. When it did, I would graduate the channel from my bench into my core mix. When it didn’t and was more often the case, I’d still consider coming back to the channel when there was a material difference between their product and ours.

Like most MLB batters, tests converted in the typical 25% range, so I would reference the difference between an all-star (.300 batting average) and a failure (the “Mendoza line” of .200).

Today, a round minimum figure to test a media channel is too often used to justify required FTEs in order to make sure the brand is taken seriously.

In a rational world, a minimum test budget is a byproduct of bespoke brand KPIs calculated from a bottoms-up approach. I understand a media channel or agency’s cost of doing business, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of their future growth from the brand.

A publicly traded ad platform prompted this rant. They said $5K was enough to test. And in Q4! The brand’s media agency agreed. I requested their forecasted results and what went into the figure. None were used. Just that $5K is enough to test. I couldn’t resist asking what AOV they used in their forecast. When they shared it was 20% of ours, they assured me that their recommendation remained valid.

A month after the test concluded, a campaign recap was not put together to tell its story and how less than the minimum amount was actually spent. The test was a waste of everyone’s time involved because we have inconclusive results of whether or not this channel could be viable.

Still, it stands to reason that a minimum ought to be brand-specific because if your measurement of success is a purchase with a high AOV and lower conversion rates, your minimum will be more than that of a brand with a greater conversion rate (because of a lower AOV or other reasons).

$5K is not enough, in fact, after years of experience, $50K is really not enough to test something like audio. In fact, audio may be one of the less expensive alternative mediums to test into due to creative production costs.

If I could manage my younger self, I would model forecasted results from the bottom up with comparable, actual conversion metrics. Then, incorporate the media channel’s average CPMs, CTRs, and other metrics, creating a red flag when the outcome likelihood of success is out of whack.

Oxford Road's Marketers Guide to Brand Safety

Podcast Loses A Friend

Oxford Road's Path to Brand Safety & Suitability

$5k is Not Enough