Have any advertisers or platforms boycotted GB News over bias allegations and what impact did that have on its revenue?
Executive summary
Advertisers pulled and paused campaigns on GB News after its 2021 launch and in later waves, with brands including IKEA, Grolsch, Kopparberg, Octopus Energy and others publicly distancing themselves amid activist pressure and campaign lists [1] [2] [3]. GB News and allies say the pull‑outs amounted to a “massive advertising boycott” that reduced ad variety on the channel and led the broadcaster to acknowledge the boycott was having an impact; independent reporting and campaign groups have tied advertiser behaviour to brand safety worries and activist pressure rather than coordinated legal action [4] [5] [6]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, audited figure for revenue lost to the boycott, though multiple reports note significant losses (e.g., claims of over £100m from campaign groups) and the channel has publicly reported multi‑million pound losses in other contexts [7] [8].
1. How the boycott began: activist pressure met by brand caution
Campaign groups including Stop Funding Hate and boycottGBNews.org led early pressure on advertisers, publishing lists of brands seen advertising on GB News and urging withdrawals; companies responded variably — some suspended or paused placements, others said ads appeared without their knowledge because buys were executed across broad agency portfolios [1] [3] [6]. Media planners told Campaign that many agency and brand decisions reflected “brand safety” concerns and discomfort with the channel’s audience and editorial stance rather than a single industry edict [6].
2. Which brands withdrew or paused ads — and why they said so
High‑profile names reported distancing themselves early: IKEA, Kopparberg, Grolsch, Nivea and the Open University were among those named as pausing or investigating placements; some firms said campaigns ran via Sky Media across many channels and they had not specifically targeted GB News [2] [1] [9]. Brands gave mixed rationales publicly — from not knowingly placing ads on the channel to saying they would only advertise if the channel proved “genuinely balanced” — showing a mix of reputational caution and operational confusion [3] [10].
3. GB News’s response and claims of commercial harm
GB News presenters and opinion pieces have framed advertiser pull‑outs as a “massive advertising boycott,” and the channel has repeatedly told its audience advertisers are steering clear, even appealing for viewer donations to offset shortfalls [4] [7]. Campaign groups counter that their early action was effective, with Stop Funding Hate and others publishing lists of remaining advertisers and claiming the channel has lost substantial income because major brands “steer clear” [7] [5].
4. Evidence on revenue impact: what is documented and what remains unclear
Independent reporting documents that GB News has recorded large operating losses (a cited loss of £42m in reporting on the channel’s finances) and that advertiser hesitancy has constrained the diversity of ads appearing on the channel, with viewers seeing repeat ads [8] [4]. Campaign organisations have asserted figures — Stop Funding Hate claimed GB News “has reportedly now lost over £100 million” — but the provided source is advocacy material rather than audited accounts and the data are not corroborated in the supplied reporting [7]. Available sources do not include a single, independently audited estimate that ties a specific revenue total directly to advertiser withdrawals (not found in current reporting).
5. Competing framings: brand safety vs. censorship
Pro‑boycott campaigners and many media commentators frame the withdrawals as legitimate brand safety choices and consumer activism; critics and some right‑leaning commentators characterise the actions as a form of “cancel culture” or an unfair industry blacklist that restricts free speech [6] [11]. GB News and sympathetic commentators argue wealthy backers can absorb losses and that the boycott underestimates the channel’s commercial resilience; other outlets and watchdogs emphasise regulatory breaches and reputational risk cited by advertisers [4] [8] [12].
6. What this means going forward for advertisers, audiences and regulators
Brands will continue to weigh reach against reputational exposure; media buyers note many TV buys are spread across channel portfolios and inadvertent placements complicate headline narratives about “boycotts” [9] [6]. Regulators and campaigners continue to press GB News on impartiality and content standards, which affects advertiser calculations; the channel’s financial position will therefore hinge on a mix of remaining advertisers, donations, wealthy investors and regulatory outcomes rather than boycott dynamics alone [12] [13] [8].
Limitations: reporting in the available sources mixes news, opinion and activist claims; there is no single public, audited accounting in these sources that quantifies total revenue lost solely because of advertiser boycotts (not found in current reporting).