4 ms·
Ok, let me run with that proposition: 1. Snapchat tries to advise Everytown that ad slots are open and the NRA is likely to capture some of them 2. Everytown
by sounds 10y ago
Ok, let me run with that proposition:
1. Snapchat tries to advise Everytown that ad slots are open and the NRA is likely to capture some of them
2. Everytown can't afford to buy up all the slots at the quoted price
(So far, I think both Everytown and Snapchat are still ok here. No harm done.)
3. Snapchat representative, Saliterman, ends the running email conversation with an email saying this: "To be clear, the story has the potential to be bought by any advertiser, including the NRA, which will enable the advertiser to run three 10-sec video ads within the story."
(At this point, if I were in Everytown's shoes, I would now fully believe Snapchat was acting against my interests. They're not even trying to work with me any more.)
Why didn't Everytown call Snapchat's bluff? Run the campaign, not buy the ad slots, let Snapchat do what they may.
They could have screen-grabbed the resulting campaign and used it to generate _massive_ publicity.
Snapchat would have had huge egg on their face.
I can think of Everytown not wanting to make a spectacle of the families who had suffered such loss. But with advance notice maybe they could have gone to the families and asked politely? It seems likely some would have agreed to let this happen and then fight the NRA on the outcome.
(If I were the NRA, as well, I would be _furious_ at Snapchat for ill-using my ad spend in this way.)
But it's all hypothetical, apparently.
- kbenson 10y agoThat's a good question. Given that Everytown refused to comment now, to me that either points to them valuing their relationship with Snapchat over the perceived benefit from speaking out, or this not being a very accurate portrayal of the events, and they know enough to know that it's not clear that Snapchat was in the wrong and they don't want to be embroiled in the circus that would result.
- hluska 10y agoEverytown did not refuse to comment; they did not respond to multiple requests for comment. There is a huge difference between the two. Several years ago, I became embroiled in a local controversy. A journalist reached out to me via Facebook messages. As she was not one of my friends, the message went into the abyss. When the story hit her publication it contained the same "Greg Hluska did not respond to a request for comment."
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- subpixel 10y agoI'm not sure Snapchat would have egg on its face in the scenario you propose. Maybe there shouldn't be ad space in these types of campaigns, but if they have do have ad slots, anyone can buy them, and I can totally see the NRA doing that.
- jlarocco 10y ago"anyone can buy them" That doesn't make any sense. The only reason "anyone" can buy the ads is that Snapchat is letting them.
- DannyBee 10y agoNot letting certain people buy them would likely result in some interesting run ins with regulators.
- mynameisvlad 10y agoThere's regulations for selling ads in the US? This is news to me.
- kbenson 10y agoI'm almost positive there are regulations of some sort for ads on over-the-air (broadcast) networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, The CW), as their are specific rules applies for their use of public frequencies. I have no idea exactly how that applies to advertising for broadcast networks. I doubt it affects Snapchat in any way.
- HillRat 10y agoOnly in regards to political candidates, who must be given reasonable commercial access; otherwise, nets are free to refuse to sell ad space to other entities, including political groups (e.g., CBS v DNC).
- DannyBee 10y ago
- the_watcher 10y agoYea, I probably would have leaned toward calling the bluff. Organizations like Everytown use the NRA as a boogeyman in enough of their campaigns that it's almost assured that they'd get a ton of earned media out of this.