Plus: Meta settles $18 billion social media suit; Substackers are not subscribing like they used to.
Callaway has cut ties with Good Good Golf and released an updated statement as the fallout continues over its ad that showed a man shoving a woman to the ground for considering touching his golf club.
The companies had worked together since 2023, CNN reports.
In a post on X, Callaway wrote: “Over the last several days, we have listened and reflected deeply on the hurt and disappointment caused by the video we reposted…Unequivocally, violence against women is unacceptable and should never be trivialized, normalized, or used as entertainment.”
— Callaway Golf (@CallawayGolf) August 27, 2026
Callaway also addressed failures leading to the ad being approved in the first place.
“In this instance, our content review process was not comprehensive enough.”
They added that they’ve taken internal corrective action and strengthened their approval process. The company also committed to donating $1 million to organizations that work to prevent violence against women, support survivors and provide education.
“These actions do not undo the harm caused or excuse our role in it,” they wrote at the end of the lengthy statement.
Why it matters: This is a much stronger crisis response than Callaway’s first statement, which expressed disappointment without mentioning that Callaway itself had approved it. That came later in the day. But the company is now clearly acknowledging where its process failed and attaching real consequences to that failure.
Ending the Good Good partnership is part of that. So is the $1 million commitment and the change to its approval process. Communicators don’t necessarily need to boot a business relationship when something goes wrong, but they do need to show stakeholders what accountability actually looks like.
Callaway’s statement gives people specifics of what went wrong, what the company is doing about it and what it believes should happen next.
They also avoid presenting the donation or the partnership split as a quick fix, which makes the follow up feel genuine and will likely give them a bit of credibility back.
What does Meta’s latest court settlement establish?
Meta has agreed to pay up to $18 billion to settle claims from 48 states that argue Facebook and Instagram harmed teen users, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Under the agreement, users under 18 will default to a two-hour daily limit across Facebook and Instagram. The apps will largely shut down for teens between midnight and 6 a.m., push notifications will stop during school hours and like counts will be hidden.
Many of these controls already existed, but users had to turn them on. Now they will be standard, and teens will generally need parental approval to change them.
Meta did not admit wrongdoing. They argued that “when teens are restricted on one app, they simply move to another,” and, “For meaningful progress to happen, we urge our peers to join us.”
For brands, this could eventually change when and how they reach younger audiences. Less time in apps and fewer notifications could mean fewer chances for brands to appear in feeds. More broadly though, the settlement puts pressure on social platforms to prove that engagement and growth are not coming at the expense of young users.
Why are less people paying for Substack subscriptions?
Substack has been the cool hangout spot for writers and readers for a while now.
The platform has evolved from newsletters into video, livestreaming and other social features. But journalist Scott Carney argues that while this strategy may be creating more activity on the platform, it’s not helping to solve a much harder problem: getting people to pay.
He sums up the majority of this as “subscription fatigue.” People already pay for streaming services, news outlets, their own car navigation systems in some cases, and too many other things. There may be a limit to how many writers they’re willing support every month.
“How many individual newsletters could the platform rationally expect readers to pay $8/month to access?” he wrote in his own, free Substack post.
Carney points to writers reporting growing follower counts alongside declining paid subscriptions and argues that Substack’s push toward free, social-style content may actually give readers less reason to pay for individual newsletters.
He brings up a very astute point. Audience size and audience value are not the same thing. More followers, views and engagement don’t necessarily mean deeper relationships or loyalty.
Brands building newsletters, creator programs or communities need to look past follower growth and ask whether people are actually , returning, clicking and taking action. There may also be an opportunity to do more with advertising or creator partnerships is subscriptions continue to wane.
What is Creator-First AEO?
Marketing agency Influencer and AI marketing platform Profound have launched what they call “Creator-First AEO.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that Profound will analyze how creator content shows up in answers from LLMs, including in video titles, captions, reviews and comparisons. Influencer can then use those findings to create better campaigns and see if that content changes how AI describes or recommends a brand.
Influencer CEO Ben Jeffries said the point is to “understand what AI is saying about your brand. Then create the evidence that helps shape what it says next.”
This expands the value of creator content beyond reach and engagement if the information is useful and keeps surfacing, Jeffries said.
It also means brands may want to think more carefully about what creators are actually saying about their products, how clearly they explain them and whether that content answers the kinds of questions people are asking AI.
There’s obviously no guarantee that creating influencer content will make ChatGPT recommend a brand, but it’s a good way to prove impact rather than just reach.
The post The Scoop: Callaway issues new apology with details on approval process, $1M donation appeared first on PR Daily.
