It is fair to say that reaction to the UK’s proposed social media ban for under-16s has been deeply divided, sparking intense debate across parents, teenagers, tech giants, and child safety experts.
Some claim the policy, which aims to block children from platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook, and X by spring 2027, is long overdue; others insist it is simply unworkable.
But one thing is certain, it will have major implications for the advertising and marketing industry, given the obsession with social-first strategies. Decision Marketing asks leading industry professionals for their take…
First up is MNSTR head of social Victor Hermann, who reckons the proposal should tell brands on social to stop relying on scale and start building something worth joining.
He explains: “Youth attention won’t disappear; it will just fragment to smaller and more niche parts of the Internet. The brands that absorb this shift will be those who invest in creating authentic communities built around genuine interest and intent, not demographic targeting.
“This ban will be significant, because it means that marketers are losing frictionless access to a generation that drives culture. Brands seeking to reach younger audiences will need to shift from performance and interruption-based logic toward relevance and meaningfulness. Without an algorithmic aid, you must make your cultural presence compelling enough for users to actively seek out, and build a community people want to come back to.”
Meanwhile, Mongoose head of creative Matt Hocken believes that, while the ban may reduce digital engagement with young fans and make it harder to reach new audiences, creating short-term challenges for sports marketing and advertising revenues, it also presents an opportunity for clubs, brands and organisations to connect with young people in the real world.
He adds: “If young people spend less time on social platforms, that creates an opportunity for organisations with the right ideas to earn their attention elsewhere.
“Over time, this could even have wider benefits. Greater participation in grassroots sport would be good for public health and could lead to more young people taking up sport regularly. In the long term, that may strengthen the talent pipeline for national teams and clubs that invest in engaging the next generation effectively.”
For SocialChain chief executive Jacinta Faul, however, the more interesting question is: where does youth culture go next?
“Young people will continue to seek out places to find their people, discover new interests and shape culture together. And that will be IRL and gaming environments, private messaging groups, creator-led communities or entirely new digital spaces.
“If the next gen of tweenie and teenage communities is going to emerge elsewhere, how do we make sure those spaces are safer from the start? The debate shouldn’t end at restriction. It should begin with reimagining what healthy digital communities look like for young people in the future.
“Creators have become a generation’s guides to culture, identity and community. If access changes, influencers will find a new home too. Let’s make sure it’s a safe one.”
Next up is MFM chief strategy officer Dan Gee, who maintains that many in the advertising industry instinctively view regulation as a threat. A constraint on growth. An obstacle to efficiency. However, in this instance, he believes the opposite may be true.
He explains: “The major algorithmic platforms have spent years optimising for engagement, scale and automation. In doing so, they have created extraordinary businesses, but they have also accumulated extraordinary levels of public distrust. Every new concern around children’s wellbeing, misinformation, harmful content, addictive design or opaque measurement chips away at the legitimacy of the ecosystem.
“That is not a sustainable foundation for advertising. The advertising industry ultimately depends upon public consent. People need to believe that the media environments around them are broadly trustworthy, broadly fair and broadly aligned with societal interests. When that confidence disappears, regulation becomes inevitable.
“In that sense, tougher regulation may prove to be the thing that saves the platforms from themselves, safeguarding brand business interests for the future.”
The final word goes to PDV Agency managing director Nigel Goldthorpe, who insists the proposed ban should be viewed as much as a data issue as a media issue.
He explains: “While attention will inevitably focus on whether brands can still reach younger audiences through social platforms, the more significant question may be what happens to the data and insight those platforms provide. Marketers have become accustomed to understanding younger consumers through behavioural signals, engagement patterns and interaction with content. A ban could make those audiences less visible and therefore harder to understand.”
However, Goldthorpe points out that marketing budgets rarely disappear, they simply move. He argues that if access to under-16s becomes more restricted on social platforms, advertisers are likely to increase investment in channels built around first-party relationships and contextual targeting, and retail media, connected TV, gaming environments, publisher networks and family-focused loyalty programmes could all benefit.
He continues: “What is perhaps less discussed is the long-term impact on customer acquisition. Social media has become one of the primary ways in which brands build relationships with younger consumers. If those routes become restricted, businesses may need to rely more heavily on parents and households as the basis for consent and engagement. That could increase the value of household-level marketing, loyalty programmes and retailer data, while making it harder for brands to establish direct, permission-based relationships with future customers.”
Goldthorpe reckons that, for the data industry, the real question is not whether young people disappear from marketing ecosystems, but how brands continue to understand and engage with them in a privacy-conscious world. While a ban could increase the value of first-party data, the industry should be careful not to assume that collecting data directly from under-16s is a straightforward alternative.
He adds: “The significance of any ban will depend less on the age threshold itself and more on how effectively it is enforced. Most major social platforms already prohibit users under 13. Extending that threshold to 16 would only materially alter the marketing landscape if platforms are required to implement robust age assurance mechanisms and can demonstrate compliance.
“Children’s data carries additional responsibilities around consent, transparency, profiling, age verification and data minimisation.
“In essence, the opportunity is not simply to acquire more data, but to build better-governed relationships based on a clear value exchange and appropriate safeguards. In a world where marketers can no longer rely quite so heavily on platform data and algorithmic targeting, permission, trust and first-party data become more valuable again. In many ways, the industry could end up rediscovering principles it understood perfectly well before social media arrived.”
Related stories
Social media ban to enforce major marketing rethink
Get your kicks in 2026… by being ‘cool’ with the gang
Three-pronged probe into abuse of children’s privacy
Social media giants warned over children’s privacy
Hands off our kids’ data, ICO warns social media giants
Be the first to comment on "How can the industry adapt to the social media ban?"