Should you be joining the banned wagon?
There’s been an interesting genre of story developing in the second half of 2026. Let me share a few examples:
Wetherspoons bans customers playing music from phones in pubs - BBC
Influencers share outrage over Nantucket store banning content creators - The Independent
Restaurants, pubs and theatres ban Meta’s ‘spy glasses’ over privacy fears - The Guardian
Australia Bans AI-Generated Tracks From Official Music Charts - Variety
Wimbledon Bans Influencer Credentials for 2027 Tournament - Sports Illustrated
That’s right, if you can’t beat ‘em BAN ‘em is very much in the zeitgeist when it comes to technology and social media in 2026.
It certainly seems to be a reliable headline generator. Whether you’re a Nantucket knick-knack shop or the world’s oldest tennis tournament, this route to global coverage is a fairly straightforward one:
Find some element of modern life people grumble about, massive bonus if tech-related
Ban it (or at least issue a press release to that effect)
Put your feet up on the desk as the coverage rolls in
And it’s a particularly powerful kind of coverage. In our divided, shouty, let’s-argue-with-strangers-online age it gives brands a point of view. They’re in on the action! The debate! They’re at the centre of The Conversation! And of course, such moves are carefully calibrated to appeal to exactly the kind of audience a brand wants to attract.
My lovely mum, an avid Wimbledon goer, would do herself an injury rolling her eyes at anyone bold enough to take a ring light onto Centre Court. The music aficionado, who spends a lifetime supporting artists, does not want an algorithm clogging up their charts.
It’s an easy win. “We get you” says the brand, the institution; “these things about modern life are Kind Of Annoying and we won’t stand for any of that in here”.
I wonder though, are bans the nuclear option? And like most nuclear options, best avoided?
Does it only rile everyone up that bit more, adding to the overall atmosphere of division that has characterised the last decade or so of modern life?
Brands, institutions,and sporting bodies are major players in our cultural discourse and - I’d argue - have as much impact on the general tone of the nation as more official policymakers.
When brands introduce these measures they join the debate for a day or two, but what after that? It’s a noisy spike with no second act, and rarely seems connected to any greater strategic play.
Plus, someone has to enforce these bans. It’s easy enough to introduce a policy, what about the team member who has to cause a scene, perhaps putting themselves at risk to eject someone from a restaurant because they happen to have a camera attached to their head, rather than simply in their hand?
What about a few years down the track when - one could hypothesise - wearables have completely replaced smartphones and suddenly a brand can look rather Luddite?
If - fellow comms pro - you did feel compelled to join the banned-wagon I’d stick to a few golden rules:
It should support a long-term strategy you were already pursuing.
Ideally the inspiration would have come from your customers. Responding directly to their needs feels inherently credible.
Make sure you have internal buy-in. Not just from the C-Suite but the people on the ground who will actually have to deal with enforcing whatever ban you’ve decided to dish out.
Are you going to regret it in six months / a few years when tech goes from nascent to normal?
So there you go. If your next press office story is a ban, good luck to you. There’s certainly life in the tactic yet and I expect to see another flurry of these as we hit the Christmas run up (retailers, shopping malls, Santa experiences, office parties and so on).
However, in a noisy, shouty world, let’s remember that the best comms work has a real, positive change on people and their lives. A nobler outcome to aim for perhaps.