3 ms·
> advertisers and agencies need assurances that Twitter isn't on the road to becoming a cesspool, and that their brand/ads won't appear near harmful content. T
by Aunche 4y ago
> advertisers and agencies need assurances that Twitter isn't on the road to becoming a cesspool, and that their brand/ads won't appear near harmful content.
The underlying assumption is that slackivists will actually put their money where their mouth is. The Chick-fil-A boycotts did absolutely nothing to their sales and I suspect the same would be true for any company that people call out for advertising on Twitter. I seriously doubt that there are very many consumers will genuinely care where a company allocates its advertising dollars.
I'm actually politically left, but the reason I care is that I hope that this forces the left to actually act outside of being angry on the internet. As much as I disagree with conservatives, I have to applaud that they actually take meaningful political action (e.g. volunteer as poll watchers because they believe in election fraud).
- mijamo 4y agoI don't think you understand. This has nothing to do with activists. Companies already did not want to advertise on controversial content 40 years ago. You don't see Rolex advertising on The Sun (and no, it's not only about demographics, plenty of upper class people read tabloids). Brand image is extremely important. You most definitely do not want most brands appearing close to shitty content. You have the same thing with physical advertising where brands will refuse their ads in some places if the perception of the space is too bad (ex: homeless people around, drug traffic...). The reason is that even if you might be interested with the brand you will now associate it with the environment you were presented it with. Of course for Lidl it is less of a worry, but even low price brands have standards and don't want to be anywhere near a nazy content.