Writing about the brand of someone whose name is "Brand" opens the door to some possible confusion. Despite the name of this blog - and the title of my book - I have long been clear that I prefer the word "reputation" to the word "brand", since it connotes exactly the same to the lay audience as it does to academic and professional commentators.
Russell Brand is now being demonetized by some platforms - notably YouTube - and advertisers are individually boycotting his content on other platforms. They are doing so because he has been accused of sexual assault and rape over incidents some years ago, when he was still prominent in the mainstream media.
It is worth noting that he has not been convicted of any crime.
It is also worth reminding ourselves why his career in the mainstream media was curtailed. He was suspended by the BBC over an incident in which he and another entertainer phoned the actor, Andrew Sachs, and left a lewd message on his voicemail. The message boasted that Brand had had sex with the actor's granddaughter. (This was actually something said by the other entertainer, who not worth naming in this context).
The young woman has recently reconfirmed that the encounter did take place, and that it was consensual. Since the radio show of which this was a part was not live, but recorded, the BBC is open to considerable criticism for suspending the two presenters, when the corporation itself took the decision to broadcast the offensive material, knowing its content.
Legally, Brand is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He cannot be imprisoned without conviction in a court of law to the appropriate standard: beyond reasonable doubt.
Any person or business which wishes to avoid dealing with him is legally and morally allowed to do so. They can do so just because they think he is unpleasant: though that case seemed clear to me before these latest allegations.
YouTube, like the BBC before it, has put itself in a difficult position. It was happy to deal with Brand before these allegations but no longer is. That makes it pretty clear that it is these unproven allegations that have made the difference. So, what is its policy with regard to unproven allegations of criminal conduct? Are these just judgments it makes up as and when they arise? Is that an adequate policy for a generally open-access platform?
YouTube is not the BBC. Its typical policy is to allow anyone to post material. The material is not edited by YouTube and carries no stamp of approval. That's a good strategy, and one it should probably maintain. Generally, content producers with strong followings can earn money from their content. Flat Earthers do, whereas Holocaust deniers are generally banned.
YouTube's own guidelines for monetization refer to the content, not the content provider. You are advised to avoid such things as "inappropriate language" or violence. It doesn't say that the same content is acceptable from some content providers but not from someone the platform views as morally suspect.
Plainly, YouTube is in a difficult position. Some content is unlawful in some jurisdictions. Holocaust denial is illegal in much of continental Europe, for example, but the platform can't simply ban any content that is unlawful in some places. Criticizing the government of China is unlawful in China.
It seems a responsible principle that someone should not be able to cash in on crimes. If a person has been convicted of a crime, then creating content about that crime is something YouTube should not allow. But, even when convicted, should a person be forever denied access to making new content?
The BBC is under no obligation to commission programs from Brand. Advertisers are under no obligation to support his content. But a blanket banning or demonetizing of his content by a generally open-access platform seems unwise.
If YouTube had asked my advice, I would have said demonetize anything he says about the allegations themselves, but otherwise leave his channel alone.