Brand safety has become selective

Brand safety sits alongside effectiveness, reach and return on investment as a core consideration in media planning. Brands should care deeply about where they show up. The environment surrounding a message shapes how it is received, remembered and trusted.

But the way brand safety is applied is not consistent. The standards shift depending on the channel. What is scrutinised in one environment is often overlooked in another. That inconsistency is now shaping investment decisions in ways that do not reflect the actual level of risk.

We have created a system where perceived risk is avoided, but proven risk is funded.

Where scrutiny shows up

Brand safety conversations tend to focus on traditional media. Television, news and reality programming are placed under a microscope when controversy arises. A storyline, a headline or a moment of tension can quickly trigger debate about whether brands should be there.

These reactions are visible and immediate. Brands are expected to respond, agencies are expected to justify decisions, and investment can shift quickly. The accountability is clear because the environments themselves are transparent and regulated.

Where scrutiny fades

Global technology platforms operate under very different conditions. Despite ongoing concerns about user safety, content moderation and platform design, advertising investment continues to grow.

This creates a clear imbalance. The environments that are most visible attract the most scrutiny. The environments where risk is less visible attract less attention, even when the underlying issues are more significant.

Despite what we know, the money continues to move in the same direction.

The evidence is not new

Concerns about platform safety have been building for years. Internal research, whistleblower testimony and public investigations have all pointed to the same underlying issue. Platform design can contribute to harm, particularly when engagement is prioritised over safety.

These findings are well known within the industry. They have been discussed widely and reported extensively. Yet awareness has not translated into meaningful shifts in advertising behaviour.

From concern to accountability

More recent developments have taken this further. Legal cases have established that platform design can actively expose users to harmful content. These findings move the issue from concern to accountability.

They also establish a precedent. This is no longer a question of whether risk exists. It is a matter of record, supported by legal findings and ongoing cases.

This is no longer a perception issue. It is a matter of record.

The contradiction at the centre

Highly regulated environments such as television and news are often treated as higher risk because their content is visible and can be judged in real time. At the same time, platforms facing sustained legal and ethical scrutiny continue to attract investment.

This raises a fundamental question. What are marketers actually responding to when they assess brand safety. If decisions are driven by perception rather than evidence, the concept itself begins to lose meaning.

The role of news in the equation

News highlights this contradiction clearly. Advertisers recognise its role in long term brand building, yet many underinvest due to concerns about adjacency. This caution sits alongside continued investment in environments that are widely considered less trusted.

In trying to avoid appearing in the wrong place, brands risk removing themselves from some of the most engaged and trusted environments available.

In trying to avoid the wrong place, brands risk removing themselves from the right one.

The wider implications

These decisions extend beyond individual campaigns. When investment moves away from regulated and trusted environments, it affects the sustainability of those channels. Television and journalism rely on advertising revenue to maintain quality and standards.

Shifts driven by perception rather than performance have long term consequences for the media ecosystem and the audiences it serves.

Television in New Zealand

Television in New Zealand operates within a clearly defined regulatory framework. The Broadcasting Act sets standards around decency, balance, public interest and the protection of audiences. The Broadcasting Standards Authority oversees compliance and addresses complaints.

Across more than 300,000 hours of broadcast content, complaints are minimal and only a small number are upheld. This reflects a stable and accountable environment for brands.

In one of the most regulated media environments, breaches are rare.

Rethinking what safe means

Brand safety is often reduced to avoiding visible controversy. But risk does not always sit in obvious places. It can sit within systems, design and underlying platform mechanics.

A broader definition is needed. One that considers both the content and the environment that supports it.

A more deliberate approach

Brand safety should be applied consistently. That requires moving beyond default settings and automated exclusions, and toward more deliberate decision making.

It means understanding the difference between perceived risk and proven harm. It means asking better questions about where brands appear and what those placements support.

For marketers, this is an opportunity to align investment with values and contribute to a more balanced and sustainable media landscape.

The real risk is not where brands appear. It is what they choose to ignore.

‍

Sources

1. New Mexico Attorney General case against Meta
2. California court findings on platform safety
3. Frances Haugen testimony to United States Congress, 2021
4. Reuters Special Report on platform advertising practices, 2025
5. Edelman Trust Report
6. Marketing Week, March 2026
7. Mediaweek, March 2025
8. New Zealand Broadcasting Act and Broadcasting Standards Authority