Proctor and Gamble cut more than $100 million in digital marketing spend during the June ’17 Quarter, due to ineffective ads and brand safety concerns. What’s even more interesting is that P&G found minimal downside to their overall business, even with the cuts to their digital marketing advertising.
P&G’s CFO, Jon Moeller recently said they were focused on dumping ads that were ending up on sites filled with bots or questionable content. “What it reflected was a choice to cut spending from a digital standpoint where it was ineffective, where either we were serving bots as opposed to human beings or where the placement of ads was not facilitating the equity of our brands,” he said.
Chief Executive David Taylor mentioned in a recent interview that P&G are concerned that their digital advertising spend was either being poorly placed or ineffective. After cutting back on their digital ad spend, they saw little reduction to their growth numbers and they believe that the advertising they cut, was largely ineffective.
Around a year ago, P&G declared that they would move away from Facebook ads, that target specific consumers. They found that ultra-targeted facebook ad campaigns had little effect and they would ultimately pull back on their total Facebook ad spend.
What’s even more interesting is that many marketing executives are voicing the same concerns that P&G have. They believe that they’re wasting money on digital ads, that never hit the intended audience. Companies deserve greater transparency regarding the reach of their digital marketing spend and this
Here at Huckster, we believe companies deserve greater transparency regarding the reach of their digital marketing spend and this is our mission.