Experts say the Trump immigration ad pulled by NBC and Fox exposes a flaw in the way political ads are reviewed — and it could become a problem for TV networks

NBC, Fox, and Facebook all pulled an ad widely condemned as racist following public backlash.
While all three companies have their own advertising standards teams that evaluate ads, an initial review didn't flag anything as impermissible in the ad.
Some experts note a perceived difference in the way ads are reviewed for commercial products and political issues.
Brand-safety issues come with running political advertisements for networks and platforms.

Less than 24 hours after an advertisement that was widely condemned as racist aired during a Sunday Night Football game on NBC, the network issued a sweeping reversal, vowing to immediately remove the ad. NBC cited the ad's "insensitive" nature as the reason for its removal.

Shortly after, both Fox and Facebook, which aired the ad on their respective platforms, issued similar statements and pulled the ad.

The 30-second primetime advertisement released by President Trump's campaign attempted to draw a connection between convicted cop killer Luis Bracamontes, an undocumented Mexican immigrant who is now on death row, and the so-called migrant caravan now traveling up through Mexico toward the US border. There is no known connection, and Trump has frequently used the migrant caravan — a group of several thousand Central American migrants fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries — as a talking point to stoke fears about immigration in the US.

So how did the ad pass muster?

For one, it actually wasn't cleared by all the companies to which it was submitted. CNN, for example, rejected the ad, calling it racist.

NBC, Fox, and Facebook all have their own advertising standards teams that evaluate ads and originally accepted the Trump ad. Federal agencies, which have varying degrees of jurisdiction regulating ads, didn't flag anything as impermissible. It was a public rebuke that prompted a second review and the eventual pulling of the ad.

The original airing, outcry, and then reversal by the networks show both the difference in rules around enforcement between commercial and political ads, and the growing indication that networks and platforms must appreciate the brand-safety issues that come with political advertisements.

Standards and practices

The teams at a network or cable company that review an ad for a commercial product and for a political candidate or cause tend to be the same. But the evaluation process is different, according to people familiar with it.

"I have to believe that in a sane world when a political party or candidate buys time, the assumption is you don't have to scrutinize ads same way you have to if someone is selling something," Preston Beckman, former NBC and Fox executive, told Business Insider. "Political ads are selling policy."

Ad agencies also note a perceived difference in the way ads are reviewed for commercial products and political issues.

"The FCC, the FTC, and the FEC leave the American people for dead when it comes to political advertising," Sarah O'Leary, lead strategist at Methods & Madness, told Business Insider. "They allow our public airwaves to be used to lie to us without any regulation."

The FCC administers political programming rules for TV, but it doesn't evaluate messaging in ads. Both the FEC and FTC oversee campaign finance laws, including the disclosure of funds raised to influence federal elections.

The network is the real evaluation point on ad messaging, according to O'Leary, who owns an ad agency.

In her experience, the process of getting a commercial ad submitted involves reading product research to understand what facts can be included in an advertisement, multiple layers of review by lawyers, and a final review by networks or cable companies to decide if the ad is legal and fact based, or misleading.

"The people at the networks know this process inside and out," O'Leary said. "They figured they'd take a chance."

Money is part of the equation, she said, and primetime slots fetch significant ad dollars. Trump spent $2.7 million on national TV ads last week alone, according to iSpot.TV.

The Trump ad was created by Jamestown Associates, a corporate advertising firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with National Media as the ad-buying agency, and aired three times on NBC properties and 14 times on Fox properties over the last week before it was pulled. At the time it was removed, it had been viewed more that 21 million times, according to iSpot.TV.

The review of a political ad shouldn't be any less stringent than it is for a commercial product, O'Leary said. "They're selling the most important thing to our society they are selling ideas and principles that are going to determine our government."

Reputational risk

Since federal agencies don't thoroughly review political ad messages, that leaves the evaluation of whether an ad is appropriate to broadcasters and cable companies. And that determination has proven difficult. NBC, Fox, and Facebook all removed the ad not because it spouted factual inaccuracies, but for less quantifiable reasons.

NBC used the term "insensitive." Facebook said the content was "sensational." In either case, the platforms seemed to designate the ad as a violation of social mores. And that may leave them exposed to a future mishap.

In the case of the most recent Trump ad that was removed, the damage seems contained.

"I don’t think there’s a reputational risk for the network and its other advertisers either way, unless an ad is so egregious that it somehow causes consumers to view other advertisers or the network negatively," Brian Wieser, senior analyst Pivotal Research, told Business Insider in an email. "Advertisers are concerned more about the content they are associated with than the brand company they keep."

YouTube is an example of a platform that faced backlash after advertisers noticed their ads running next to offensive or extremist content. It resulted in hundreds of advertisers pulling their ads from YouTube even though ads only rarely ran next to questionable content, Wieser said.

But advertisers usually only act when there's a direct correlation between content or brand safety and an ad.

Take Facebook's role in the genocide against the Rohingya, a persecuted Muslim minority group. On Monday, Facebook admitted it didn't do enough to prevent its platform being used to incite violence and hate against the Rohingya. But advertisers aren't boycotting Facebook the way they did YouTube.

"No advertiser has concern at this time because, I think, the connection is too indirect for most consumers to appreciate even if it seems plain as day to someone studying the business closely," Wieser said.

It may take someone putting together a clear argument that resonates with large groups of people for the connection to become more problematic, he said.

But brand-safety issues for networks and platforms could become more of an issue in the future because of changing expectations of consumers.

"I think millennials and young people want to align with platforms and brands that are extensions of their values and their principles," Joseph Anthony, CEO of New York based advertising firm Hero Group, told Business Insider.

"I think that the networks are not insulated from that, especially as you see more young people cut the cord and starting to look at more on demand platforms and there are a lot more options out there."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 4 lottery winners who lost it all