The strategic planning issues faced by agencies these days are complex and go far beyond arguments over maximising reach, frequency caps, wear-in, wear-out and the rest. There is a moral dimension too.

There’s also the matter of objectivity and trust. The dilemma is – where to draw the line between advertisers interfering in editorial freedoms, and supporting a channel that seems to consider itself apart from common laws of decency.

Imagine this.

An online platform that measures its own audiences. That avoids external examination and validation. That makes errors in calculations, some of which it corrects, some of which it doesn’t. After all, if nobody notices or challenges the data, who cares? Truth and objectivity?

A channel some of whose staff are so concerned about what they see as their management’s priorities that they would rather jump ship, giving up a no doubt well-paid position to blow the whistle.

A channel that self-regulates, that ignores restrictions on such as political advertising that apply to other media forms.

An organisation that uses the data provided by its users to trap the gullible in a web of dis-information, and then hides behind complex terms and conditions that no-one reads, and details of the privacy options available that are so full of jargon that few bother with them.

A platform, not, please note, a publisher, that avoids taking responsibility for the content that it publishes.

A channel funded by advertisers – many of whom are busy promoting the importance of corporate responsibility, of behaving with a sense of civil purpose, of supporting civil liberties, diversity, inclusion and so on.

Would these advertisers condone lying in their copy? Would they continue running material that offends or even harms some of their audience?

No of course they wouldn’t.

So why on earth do they continue to support these platforms?

We can go further. What if ads on these channels were shown not to attract attention? What if ads on them simply don’t work a lot of the time? What if the ads that do work on them are of a very specific type – reminder messages for example, or direct response?

Why do major brand builders continue to use them to ‘build their brands’?

Let’s recap. False audience data. Misuse of data. No responsibility for the content that appears. Ineffective for brand building.

If anyone reading this plans campaigns for a living they would surely not use these media.

And yet they do.

It really isn’t good enough to say: ‘that’s where you find the audience’. Who says so? Who validates that data? And is ‘audience’ just a one-dimensional number – a gross impression, in the vernacular.

Plus – it’s not the only place to find the audience. They use multiple media forms, as we all know.

Nor is it professional to say: ‘our client mandates it’. Maybe so, but many clients would also mandate smaller ads, larger logos and using the wife’s cousin in the ad. We argue against them because we know from experience, from years of looking at data, we know what works.

Except, in media we apparently don’t; or if we do we keep quiet about it and settle for an easy life doing what our clients want as opposed to what they need.

Media strategising is full of tough calls, but those that do it can be and should be the voice of reason on how the client’s money is spent. It’s up to them to raise effectiveness concerns, even moral concerns.

They won’t always be listened to, they certainly won’t always win the day but they owe it to themselves and to the business they’re in to try.