A recent Wall Street Journal report revealed that Interpublic Group (IPG) received phone calls from X representatives, strongly encouraging its clients to advertise more on X. The calls, according to WSJ, included hints about the platform’s ties to the U.S. government, which is in charge of approving the holding company’s merger with Omnicom.

In response to WSJ‘s reporting, IPG Canada shared the following statement: “We continually work with a cross-section of media partners and believe a broad range of options delivers the greatest value and efficiency for marketers. We do not make spending commitments on behalf of clients to any partner or platform, and decision-making authority always rests with the client.”

This latest development underscores ongoing tensions between X and the advertising industry since Elon Musk acquired the platform in 2022. Musk’s controversial behaviour and X’s lack of brand safety measures initially drove advertisers away. The platform says it was deprived of billions in ad revenue, and as a result, filed an antitrust lawsuit last year against the WFA and its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative. The lawsuit named major brands, including Unilever, Mars, and CVS. Shortly afterward, the WFA shut down GARM as a result of the allegations significantly draining resources and finances.

With the industry still reeling from brand safety controversies and legal battles, the moves by X raise urgent questions: How much influence should platforms wield over ad dollars? And what happens when brand safety takes a backseat to corporate coercion?

The battle over brand safety

Protecting brand equity is a core responsibility for media agencies. Studies have shown that consumers will abandon brands that advertise alongside offensive content. A DoubleVerify survey of over 19,000 participants across 17 countries found that content adjacency is only one aspect of brand safety. Brands must also consider the message conveyed and how audiences perceive their advertisements. High-risk content includes user-generated content, graphic material, and irresponsible handling of sensitive topics. Social media platforms with minimal moderation, including X, can fall into this high-risk category. Meanwhile, dramatic depictions and news content present medium risks.

Agencies now find themselves caught in a precarious position, as platforms and their legal teams attempt to dictate where brands should spend their ad dollars – potentially at the expense of brand reputation. Beyond the dissolution of GARM, legal actions in the U.S. have also led to widespread rollbacks of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Although Canada is not directly impacted by these maneuvers, Canadian agencies with U.S.-based parent companies have been cautious about discussing X’s aggressive tactics.

Setting a dangerous precedent for advertising

Devon MacDonald, president of independent Canadian agency Cairns Oneil, warns that coercion in media buying sets a dangerous precedent.

“The implied coercion or threat from this reporting presents a dark future for advertising. Taking a principal media position in a platform to avoid persecution is a horrible development for an agency and its clients. With such a position, an agency could be put in the difficult position of recommending sites or placements that aren’t safe for the brand or effective in engaging their target audience. This isn’t even principle-based buying; it’s politics-based.”

MacDonald emphasizes that any agency or client advertising on X should implement brand safety filters and performance guarantees.

Mimi Salviato, chief client officer of Involved Media, cautions that if X prevails in its lawsuit, it could disrupt the industry’s ability to prioritize strategic, brand-appropriate advertising. Conversely, if X loses the lawsuit, it could mark a major shift for the platform. Salviato speculates that financial desperation might drive X to double down on subscription-based revenue models or explore alternative monetization strategies, such as pay-per-content creation or premium services for businesses and creators.

“Brand association with platforms isn’t just about audience reach – it’s about perception,” Salviato says. “A brand’s image is shaped as much by where it appears as by what it says. If a brand finds itself in an environment that conflict with its identity, values or message, it can damage the brand’s image and connection with consumers.”

She adds, “For media agencies, it’s critical to be vigilant in representing the brand’s interests, even as platforms evolve or attempt to exert control. The media landscape is ever-changing, but the need to protect and nurture brand identity remains constant.”

Further erosion of brand safety standards

Sarah Thompson, chief commercial officer at Mantis Group, warns that such a scenario could exacerbate issues related to made-for-advertising sites, ad fraud, and the erosion of brand safety standards across platforms.

“Imagine a large-scale programmatic partner forcing brands to spend money on display advertising when we know there is fraud. Accountability will go out the window, and blowing back will be a waste and cause a lack of integrity in information across the world and what the media agency was supposed to do – which is to not spend the client’s money but rather to invest it to grow the business. The expectation from a partner in principal trading doesn’t go down for volume growth from a media agency – it goes up, and the financial benefit to the agency from this cannot be weaned.”

Thompson argues that risk assessments must become a greater priority for brands. Chief risk officers and chief marketing officers must collaborate more closely, as their investments now carry significant reputational risks.

She says that this isn’t just about an ad appearing in questionable content – it becomes a systemic issue, akin to financial crimes like money laundering. “The media industry isn’t regulated like the financial sector, which means we lack the necessary compliance, audits, and risk management frameworks.”

Thompson adds that the industry needs to prioritize quality investments rather than treating all media as a cost-cutting exercise. “We need to pay for quality, not think all media should be cheap. I guarantee that cheap also usually means that it was a bot that responded to an ad, not a human. We are shattering the credibility of our entire media industry. And you can’t walk that back.”