It’s been a strange few days for brand safety, with the news of Elon Musk’s X lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and the subsequent shock of GARM shutting down. As a podcast advertising leader, I have witnessed firsthand how GARM’s approach to brand safety has not served the best interests of advertisers, publishers, creators, or the medium itself. While the collapse of GARM was not entirely unexpected, the suddenness of it and the reasons cited in the press were surprising.
GARM had long been the default authority for brand safety online, but in recent years, it had come under criticism from right-wing groups for allegedly silencing conservative voices. While I agree that GARM was flawed in its approach to promoting brand safety, the arguments made by conservative groups did not fully align with the reality of the situation. The framework consistently failed in its application, with brand safety tools like Barometer and Sounder producing outputs that were detrimental to content on both ends of the political spectrum, resulting in lost advertising revenue for creators on both sides.
The shutdown of GARM presents an opportunity to build a new approach to brand safety, but first, we must understand the nature of GARM’s shortcomings without getting caught up in the political spectacle surrounding it. Despite the criticisms from conservative groups, the intentions of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and the individuals behind GARM were likely well-meaning. The issue was not bias in the standards but rather the impracticality of the criteria used, which ended up hurting everyone involved.
GARM’s brand safety failures can be attributed to the rise of negative partisanship and the polarization of online discourse. The framework penalized content that addressed sensitive topics, regardless of how responsibly they were discussed, leading to inaccurate ratings and misplaced labels of risk. The attempt to address misinformation in the framework also proved to be a challenge, as no organization or technology can effectively combat misinformation in a way that satisfies all parties.
For marketers looking to avoid being caught in the crossfire of the culture wars, the choice to avoid advertising on potentially unsafe platforms becomes a simple one. However, this approach ultimately harms the entire market, regardless of political affiliation. Moving forward, future brand safety efforts should focus on measuring personal attacks and promoting civility in online discourse, rather than relying on contextless keyword detection.
GARM’s initial goal of applying nutrition labels to media was a positive step, but it is clear that a different approach is needed. By shifting the focus to measuring civility levels in online environments and making brands aware of the potential for personal attacks, we can create a safer and more reliable way for brands to share their messages while promoting a healthier online discourse.