The list of organisations deserting ask.fm seems to get longer with each story published on the issue: Specsavers, Mind, The Sun, BT, Vodafone, EDF Energy and a number of other big brands have all either pulled advertising or made it clear they will not use the site in the future.
It's hardly a surprising decision given the political and public outrage following the suicide of Hannah Smith, who took her own life after being bullied on the social networking site. After all, few organisations would want their brands associated with the tragedy or the storm of criticism that has followed it.
Withdrawal should protect companies from any damage that such an association might cause, but will it have any larger effect? Could it, for example, persuade ask.fm to change its ways? It's certainly possible, according to Roger Delves, a former board director at advertising agency DMB&B, who now teaches ethics at Ashridge Business School. "It is absolutely possible. It is advertising that generates the revenue that allows the site to exist – it's a commercial enterprise." If advertisers take a principled stance and refuse to use it unless it tackles bullying effectively, for example by improving transparency and minimising anonymity, the site could be forced to change, he said.
By this same logic Stephen Fry could, theoretically at least, add weight to his campaign for a boycott of the Winter Olympics in Russia over its anti-gay laws by persuading the Games' commercial partners to cut their ties with the event. Such action by these businesses, which include Coca-Cola, McDonalds and NBC seems unlikely, however. The New York Times has described their response to the issue as "publicly muted" despite being contrary to "their own corporate policies against discrimination."
This is because decisions about advertising and sponsorship tend to be made pragmatically, according Delves. Values are part of the equation, in that companies do not want to be associated with media values that conflict with their brand personality, but they are not the only factor. "Generally the ethical approach to business is utilitarian, where the end justifies the means," he said.
Roughly speaking, this means that the Olympics' status as a huge event with an enormous audience outweighs the level of public concern about Russia's laws. "If you look back to Beijing, China's record on human rights was not outstanding … [but] the audience and the event itself is so huge that it transcends national boundaries and all other considerations."
This is not to say that the end always justifies the means; a big enough concern flips the balance, which is when advertising gets pulled or sponsorship is ended – at least temporarily.
"Companies want to make sure that the editorial environment in which they advertise is working hard for them and not opposing the values or brand personality they are trying to put across." A public backlash against a publication will almost inevitably mean that the "editorial environment" in question is no longer a good fit – not necessarily because the publication's core values have changed but because the backlash means that it is no longer a good business choice for the advertiser. This is why advertisers will often return once the storm has blown over; once the public outrage has faded, the publication may once again meet their needs.
"The ask.fm situation is tragic but it is by no means unique," said Delves. "Any red-top newspaper in the UK has had examples of running a headline or story or piece of news where there has been a public backlash and as part of that they see ads pulled. It does not last forever."
This is where the ask.fm situation might be rather different, however. Delves sees what happened as less of an unlucky one-off in an otherwise relatively manageable editorial environment and more of a wake-up call to advertisers that websites that depend on anonymous, crowd-sourced information are inherently risky. "Other people who advertise on these sorts of sites will be having urgent meetings to find out whether they are exposed and who the next ask.fm will be," he said.
Such discussions are likely to be dominated by concerns about brand image and consistency, but bringing principle into the debate offers companies that want to take a more proactive approach the chance to bring about positive change.
"I don't think that taking a reactive view of 'can we go in, can we get away with it' is a position filled with integrity," said Delves. "But business and advertising do have the potential to be a powerful force for good."
Companies can make a difference, then; they just have to want to do it.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Become GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
