Good, I hope we see a sleeping giants-style shaming of advertisers who financially support Facebook
> Procter & Gamble Co. PG 0.66% , the biggest advertising spender in the world, will move away from ads on Facebook that target specific consumers, concluding that the practice has limited effectiveness.
More-and-more-specialized online display advertising rarely delivers as (heh) advertised on any platform.
But on the other hand, the bit you leave out includes both that they weren't cutting their FB budget, and that they'd found some areas where it works better:
> Mr. Pritchard said P&G won’t cut back on Facebook spending and will employ targeted ads where it makes sense, such as pitching diapers to expectant mothers.
So the real question is: were these political campaigns the useless sort of micro-targeting, or the effective kind?
> “Digital ad spending was lower versus a high base period and due to current period choices to temporarily restrict spending in digital forums where our ads were not being placed according to our standards and specifications,” the company said in its earnings
I suspect that FB targeted ads are not as useful for larger companies (who are generally advertising for awareness) compared to smaller or niche companies (where the target audience may be well defined).
If you want to build brand awareness for bland, forgettable products that people buy offline as I imagine P&G does, you want to blanket ads to broad audiences, not relatively small lists of specific individuals.