Facebook Ad Boycott: Social Media Advertising

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

In my opinion, by joining the Facebook ad boycott, companies make a significant contribution to social responsibility efforts. Zuckerbergs networks are effective marketing platforms for large businesses. When well-known corporations, such as Starbucks and Coca Cola stop using Facebook for the purpose of promoting social agenda, it is a sign that these companies are committed (CBS Mornings, 2020). However, in order to explain the absence of Amazon among the boycotting companies, firms CSR motivations have to be analyzed.

The typical ways companies show their commitment to social responsibility efforts are via promoting important public issues. For example, a corporation may switch to ecologically friendly production to aid in preserving the environment, or it can launch a crowdfunding initiative directed at financing the research into a disease treatment. Usually, such campaigns are safe, as they are politically neutral. However, He & Gustafsson (2021) believe that the Facebook ad boycott is a different type of CSR effort since it promotes a politically controversial issue. Not only did companies made their stance on hate speeches clear, but they also alienated a number of influential people and organizations, including Facebook.

Such a move might not be the most ethical corporate decision. CSR is defined as a firms commitment to maximize long-term economic, societal, and environmental well-being through business practices, policies, and resources (He & Gustafsson, 2021, p. 217). Subsequently, all corporate activities need to have an essential characteristic to be labelled as ethical contribution to social development, which is not required by law. Although joining the boycott is by no means obligatory, it might actually have the opposite effect on the overall well-being because it aggravates social tension.

This might be the reason why Amazon has abstained from the boycott. Naturally, it profits from the situation because the participating companies need alternatives to Facebook, and Amazon is one such option. Nevertheless, Amazon still has a Facebook page and has refrained from making a public stance on this affair. If the goal is to prevent the deterioration of corporate relations, Amazon could make a compromising decision speak out against hate speeches, but not at the cost of social well-being. Such a claim would be an effective way for Amazon to showcase its commitment to CSR.