6 ms·

> hes lucky corporate brands and advertisers havent figured out they could start their own Mastodon instance for almost nothing, plug it until it becomes more p

> hes lucky corporate brands and advertisers havent figured out they could start their own Mastodon instance for almost nothing, plug it until it becomes more popular than Twitter, and maintain all their existing brand safety controls in the process. This is a very funny way of thinking which gets reality backwards. Corporate brands go where user eyeballs are. In the past the eyeballs read newspapers, and advertisers paid newspapers for space. Then the eyeballs went to Google, and advertisers paid Google for space. Then Facebook, and Twitter took over, and advertisers started paying them. Advertisers don't tell user eyeballs what platforms to go to. They follow the users.

sosull 4y ago
Is there even a remotely balanced alignment between the number of users on a platform and that platform’s advertising market share? I think the answer is no. Google and Meta dominate ads. No-one else really has traction, irrespective of their platform’s success.
- rco8786 4y ago
  That’s a super weird take. Google and Meta absolutely dominate on users also.
  - sosull 4y ago
    Yes, you’re correct. I was wrong. Apologies.
nimchimpsky 4y ago
__alexs 4y ago
Google ad revenue is considerably more than Meta and Twitter combined.
frereubu 4y ago
I don't think it's that simple is it? Companies like Ford don't advertise on sites like Parler not just because there aren't many people there, but because of the content that their adverts would be presented alongside. What seems to concern companies about the new direction of Twitter is that more extremists may be allowed back on Twitter if the content rules are loosened, and the companies' advertising may be presented alongside that. It may also be that if those extremists are allowed back then many people will start to desert Twitter, and it will be even less attractive. But I think both things - number of users and the content - are being taken into account.
- Thorentis 4y ago
  I really don't think companies care what their ads appear alongside. They care about a Twitter user posting an outrage tweet with a screenshot of an ad for a Burger appearing next to the N word. As if we aren't mature enough yet to separate ad space and user generated content.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    The ads pay for the content that appears next to them to appear in the first place. There can be no separation at ad funded companies.
  - frereubu 4y ago
    Companies do care what their ads appear alongside, because of the outrage tweets and because, en masse, people / the media aren't mature enough to separate ad space and user-generated content.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      No a very loud, very vocal, minority of users that have an extreme authoritarian world view and will create the appearance of wide scale social outrage where there is none will scare marketers.. Of course if they had any real data on the impact of their ads they probally will realize that none of the ads are effective anyway. I have never once saw a twitter ad for a large national fast food place, or a car company and said "hey I need to go buy from them" Now marketing for lesser known things, things I may not have even known existed well that is effective. But a Burger king add no....
syntheweave 4y ago
Corporations bootstrapping their own community spaces, branded journalism, etc is historically common; the reason for not doing that comes down to cost and convenience. It saps away attention from the primary line of business to invest in a genuine, highly-engaged space like that, and it's much easier to look for platforms with a generic ad slot to insert messaging into. But the past decades of outsource-and-automate, attaching the brand to new tech companies as they appear, has largely passed; if all the existing spaces have become unproductive sources of eyeballs, you have to change course and come up with a way to make "mcdonalds.social" an attractive hangout instead. The only reason centralized social media got as far as it did before was because the capital markets footed that bill.
simplotek 4y ago
> This is a very funny way of thinking which gets reality backwards. Corporate brands go where user eyeballs are. This is a rather naive and uninformed take. Here's yesterday's tweet of the day, where a top marketer called Elon Musk on his bullshit conspiracy theory. https://twitter.com/LouPas/status/1588599808587345921 https://twitter.com/LouPas/status/1588599808587345921

sosull 4y ago

Is there even a remotely balanced alignment between the number of users on a platform and that platform’s advertising market share? I think the answer is no. Google and Meta dominate ads. No-one else really has traction, irrespective of their platform’s success.

rco8786 4y ago
That’s a super weird take. Google and Meta absolutely dominate on users also.
- sosull 4y ago
  Yes, you’re correct. I was wrong. Apologies.

nimchimpsky 4y ago

__alexs 4y ago

Google ad revenue is considerably more than Meta and Twitter combined.

frereubu 4y ago

I don't think it's that simple is it? Companies like Ford don't advertise on sites like Parler not just because there aren't many people there, but because of the content that their adverts would be presented alongside. What seems to concern companies about the new direction of Twitter is that more extremists may be allowed back on Twitter if the content rules are loosened, and the companies' advertising may be presented alongside that. It may also be that if those extremists are allowed back then many people will start to desert Twitter, and it will be even less attractive. But I think both things - number of users and the content - are being taken into account.

Thorentis 4y ago
I really don't think companies care what their ads appear alongside. They care about a Twitter user posting an outrage tweet with a screenshot of an ad for a Burger appearing next to the N word. As if we aren't mature enough yet to separate ad space and user generated content.
- pjc50 4y ago
  The ads pay for the content that appears next to them to appear in the first place. There can be no separation at ad funded companies.
- frereubu 4y ago
  Companies do care what their ads appear alongside, because of the outrage tweets and because, en masse, people / the media aren't mature enough to separate ad space and user-generated content.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    No a very loud, very vocal, minority of users that have an extreme authoritarian world view and will create the appearance of wide scale social outrage where there is none will scare marketers.. Of course if they had any real data on the impact of their ads they probally will realize that none of the ads are effective anyway. I have never once saw a twitter ad for a large national fast food place, or a car company and said "hey I need to go buy from them" Now marketing for lesser known things, things I may not have even known existed well that is effective. But a Burger king add no....

syntheweave 4y ago

Corporations bootstrapping their own community spaces, branded journalism, etc is historically common; the reason for not doing that comes down to cost and convenience. It saps away attention from the primary line of business to invest in a genuine, highly-engaged space like that, and it's much easier to look for platforms with a generic ad slot to insert messaging into. But the past decades of outsource-and-automate, attaching the brand to new tech companies as they appear, has largely passed; if all the existing spaces have become unproductive sources of eyeballs, you have to change course and come up with a way to make "mcdonalds.social" an attractive hangout instead. The only reason centralized social media got as far as it did before was because the capital markets footed that bill.

simplotek 4y ago

> This is a very funny way of thinking which gets reality backwards. Corporate brands go where user eyeballs are. This is a rather naive and uninformed take. Here's yesterday's tweet of the day, where a top marketer called Elon Musk on his bullshit conspiracy theory. https://twitter.com/LouPas/status/1588599808587345921 https://twitter.com/LouPas/status/1588599808587345921