The UK’s planned ban on social media for under-16s could accelerate the decline of social-first youth marketing and force brands to rethink everything from influencer campaigns to audience targeting, according to Northern industry leaders.
While the move has been widely welcomed as an attempt to protect children from harmful content and unhealthy online behaviours, marketers, agency leaders and technology experts say it could trigger significant changes in how brands engage younger audiences.
‘Children are not the problem’
Not everyone in the sector supports the government’s approach. Joe Thompson, chief technology officer at digital consultancy hedgehog lab, argued that ministers are focusing on the wrong target.
“Undoubtedly there are many harmful facets to social media,” he said. “But why aren’t we talking about banning the toxic content, the exploitative algorithms, the harmful targeted ads instead?
“Children are not the problem, the platforms are – there is an element of victim-blaming to the decision to ban under-16s from social media.
“If we’re going to impose regulation on social media platforms, it should be to force them to consider the safety and wellbeing of all users, and to have accountability for protecting everybody from the nastier angles of humanity on the internet.”
Thompson warned that removing children from mainstream platforms could simply push them elsewhere.
“By banning children from the platforms, we will drive them to less-regulated, more unruly parts of the internet, deprive them of the benefits of good social media, squander the opportunity for them to learn self-regulation in a safe environment, and let Big Tech off the hook on yet another social obligation.”
A correction to social media’s regulatory imbalance?
Others believe the move is a necessary response to a long-standing gap between advertising regulation and social media.
Fergal O’Connor, chief executive of AI-powered advertising specialist Buymedia, said advertising aimed at children is already heavily regulated, while social media platforms have often escaped the same level of scrutiny.
“The rules on advertising to under-16s are quite clear,” he said. “The challenge that society has faced is that while the advertising and media market is well regulated to protect under-16s, social media platforms are not.
“So someone selling diet pills, beauty products, or messaging aimed to commercialise the under-16 market has carte blanche to post what they want in an environment where younger people are exposed to and influenced by this messaging. So the move to restrict exposure of younger people to this messaging is a positive move.”
However, he also questioned how the ban will be enforced in practice. “The challenge is the implementation and verification of age, identity etc. To do it properly you need the state to have access to a lot of personal information on each individual, which many people would not want, and if it’s not done properly then it is open to abuse and becomes a statement of intent rather than an enforceable act.
“So it is a tricky one. There is also an element of a thin line between protection and censorship.”
Influencer marketing in the firing line
One of the most immediate impacts could be on influencer marketing and the way brands reach younger consumers.
“From a brand perspective it will definitely impact the use of influencers and the methods used by brands to reach this cohort of customers,” said O’Connor. “It should have a positive impact on media like outdoor which reaches a mass market and is seen by all demographics.
“There is likely to be a move away from micro-influencers into more mass-market advertising for brands targeting this younger demographic.”
The comments echo lessons emerging from Australia, which introduced the world’s first under-16 social media ban last year and has already prompted debate around the future of youth targeting, creator marketing and audience engagement.
For Miles Dagnall, business development manager at Manchester-based Edison Media, however, the bigger question is whether brands should have been trying to reach under-16s directly in the first place.
“The biggest change here is not whether brands can still reach under-16s on social media,” he said.
“A better question is whether many brands should have been trying to reach them directly in the first place.
“There have already been clear rules on marketing to children on social media for years, so I do not think this will cause the sudden disruption some people expect.”
The rise of family marketing
Dagnall believes the ban could encourage brands to think beyond the individual child and focus more on wider household decision-making.
“We work with a lot of colleges, where the audience often includes 15-year-olds making decisions about open events, courses and what they do after school,” he said. “On paper, that looks like a youth audience. In reality, it is a family decision.
“Parents, carers, schools, friendship groups, local reputation, transport, cost, confidence and future career prospects all play a part.”
If social media becomes a less direct route to younger audiences, he believes brands will need to strengthen other channels.
“For education brands, this means parent and guardian messaging becomes more important. Search becomes more important. CRM becomes more important. School partnerships, local media, open-event journeys and first-party data become more important.
“The job is not just to get a teenager to click. It is to help a household make a confident decision.”
Why first-party data matters more than ever
The announcement also comes as brands increasingly prioritise first-party data, CRM and owned audiences as privacy regulations tighten and third-party cookies disappear.
O’Connor believes the obvious response for many brands will be to invest more heavily in communities, direct relationships and experiential activity.
“The question on first-party data is interesting as yes, that would be the obvious move. Build a community and drive this community to more IRL or experiential events,” he said. “However, the challenge there is the strict rules on targeting under-16s.”
He added that marketers still face a fundamental question.
“The question remains where do these brands engage and build these communities when the social media platforms targeting this audience are no longer available to build these communities on.”
Has the horse already bolted?
Others question whether policymakers can realistically put the genie back in the bottle. Mirage Islam, senior lecturer in digital marketing at the University of Salford, said social media has already fundamentally changed the relationship between brands and younger consumers.
“Additionally, new commercial ecosystems have been created due to social media who rely heavily on impressing young audiences – this is going to have an impact on the marketing and advertising industry,” he said.
“I’m not sure the policymakers have the technology and commercial know how to enforce this decision. For all intents and purposes, the horse has already bolted.”
Islam also warned that technology companies have often moved faster than regulators.
“Technology companies, who designed these platforms to be addictive, are streets ahead of the policymakers,” he said. “So policing this decision, especially when the technology companies wield so much power, is going to be ever harder.”
With further details of the government’s plans expected next month, marketers, agencies and platforms now face a period of uncertainty as they assess what one of the biggest changes to the UK’s digital landscape could mean for audience engagement, creator marketing and youth-focused campaigns.
