It is entirely appropriate these advertisers should withdraw their advertsing.

Facebook should remove these pages ASAP, otherwise they will suffer the judgement of the ‘court of public opinion’.

I agree completely with your point about it being the brand’s responsibility, which they’re clearly exercising in this case by pulling the ads. I also think you have a good point about advertisers being fickle in these cases — but I think they have to be.

I don’t see how a site “related” to the BNP is any different than the real thing. They’re white supremacists and, last I recall, the British nation (the real one, not this political party) lost the better part of a generation in a fight against such bigotry and nationalist — it’s actually fascism in this case — ideology.

Virgin has a highly inclusive multi-cultural brand image, which they surely don’t wish to tarnish with poorly-targeted ad buys. Hopefully they’ve learned their lesson. In my opinion, this shouldn’t tell them to avoid advertising on Facebook. On the contrary; next time they just shouldn’t be cheap about it! Sir Richard’s got the money.

Still, I side with Facebook with their response. It’s the same for advertising Bah Mitzvahs on an Islamic Religious site or how about Durex on a Pro-life or catholic website? I’m pretty sure this must have happened… but is it as controversial.

In the end, brands have the responsibility to investigate brand management. Targetted marketing works. Normally for this, you have to pay more.

They all love the viral nature of the internet but hate it when it doesn’t give them their rewards.

Shine on,
Aaron