6 ms·

Isn’t Elon the problem? This whole thing has been so public, including the text messages from the pre-trial, that anything he says now is like the emperor’s ne

by zen21 4y ago

Isn’t Elon the problem? This whole thing has been so public, including the text messages from the pre-trial, that anything he says now is like the emperor’s new clothes.

throw310822 4y ago
I frankly don't understand what the problem is. Advertisers should put ads on the platform if they bring in more revenue than they cost. Have they 1) decided that Twitter users are not worth the cost of the ads because they don't consume? Or are they 2) afraid that the content on the website might become so bad that seeing a brand advertised next to it will make the consumers less prone to buying their product? Or 3) are they afraid of being subjected to targeted campaigns from activists and politically motivated press because they didn't "cancel" Twitter? I don't think that the user base has changed so much yet, so 1) doesn't seem plausible; as for 2), I doubt that the content has already become so overwhelmingly bad that ads beside it could cause aversion in consumers (assuming these can't tell the difference between tweets and ads- newspapers advertise anything side to side with news on murder and terrorism, nobody objects). So it seems the problem can only be 3)- fear of being targeted by politically motivated campaigns.
- zen21 4y ago
  It’s #2. This is brand advertising, not product ads. It’s about the overall reputation of Twitter. Newspapers are a good analogy. Is Twitter more like the NYTimes, or the NYPost? That will determine who advertises.
  - throw310822 4y ago
    Are people who don't read the NYPost really concerned with which brands advertise on the NYPost? And are US consumers so seriously engaged that they will punish a brand for advertising in the wrong newspaper- autonomously, without concerted campaigns to convince them to do so? And what is this "overall reputation" of a media, and how did Twitter's change so fast without yet (I presume) significant changes to its contents?
    - zen21 4y ago
      Your first paragraph has good questions that are all a part of how brand advertising works. This isn’t new. As for the second paragraph. If you don’t think Musk has changed twitter’s brand and reputation, then I think you are in a minority.
      - throw310822 4y ago
        I see that a lot of people talk about Twitter's reputation as changed. What I don't understand is whether this change is real and determined by an actual change of Twitter the product (yet), or because of a more or less concerted (and politically motivated) effort to pretend that the product has changed, because of a dislike of Musk. In the first case, advertisers actions (whatever their real motives) could be ethically justified and their decisions accepted as inevitable; in the second we should be worried that a political faction can wield such power through manipulation of consumers and market forces. (And of course, it could be a mix of both cases.)
        zen21 4y ago
        As far as I can see, Twitter’s current problems are a result of Elon making decisions in service of the debt he created in order to purchase the company. He’s also fired a large number of people involved in content moderation, and compliance officers have simply resigned. The company is far less healthy now than it was before, and this is very public knowledge. Nothing to do with political factions, and all consequences of Elon’s decisions.
        licebmi__at__ 4y ago
        Unless you think people hate Musk because of the look on his face, I don't know how can the two of them be separated. Disregarding whether you approve or reject Elon Musks opinions, it's absurd to think that Elon's takeover and pretty vocal announcement of change twitter to his vision wouldn't affect the brand and reputation. You can debate whether the changes should be of concern to advertisers (to which my opinion is that they obviously are), but it's undeniable that the brand has changed.
- SonOfKyuss 4y ago
  There’s probably a bit of all 3, but one factor you don’t mention is the chaos element that comes with Musk. Traditional brands like stability and whatever one’s feelings are about him, stability is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Elon Musk. For example, if Elon suddenly starts sharing pictures of himself giving a nazi salute and promoting holocaust denial, most brands won’t want to be associated with that. And given his history of pushing conspiracy theories, you really can’t rule anything out. So brands are backing off to see where this is all going, which would fall under option 2. See also: Kanye Edit because I remembered an even more obvious reason. When the first wave of advertisers left, which could be argued as “political activism” he named and shamed those brands with the implied threat of boycotts from his army of loyal followers. If I were in charge of a brand running ads on Twitter, that alone would make me question whether I want to continue to do business with them. You don’t threaten your customers and expect that to work out well for your business.
  - throw310822 4y ago
    > For example, if Elon suddenly starts sharing pictures of himself giving a nazi salute and promoting holocaust denial, most brands won’t want to be associated with that. Brands can back out if and when that happens, no need to do it preemptively. And besides, an advertiser is not a business partner: there is no exclusive association between the brand and the advertisement outlet. Your next example shows the difference: > See also: Kanye Kanye is a business partner of the brands that sponsor him- they use his image to promote theirs. It makes perfect sense for them to stop their partnerships when his image is tarnished. But brands don't use Twitter's image to promote themselves, they just rent space to reach its users' eyeballs. > he named and shamed those brands with the implied threat of boycotts... No he didn't (threatened to, never actually did it afaik); but how come that brands are afraid of vague risks for the future of a platform they simply advertise on, and not with the much more credible risk of being boycotted by a few million customers who also happen to be Musk's fans?
    - SonOfKyuss 4y ago
      You’re really overcomplicating things to somehow try to make the richest person in the world out to be some kind of a victim of a woke mob. It’s simple. Brand advertising is all about trends. Twitter/Elon, and Kanye used to be trending up in popular culture. Brands wanted to be associated with them. Recently they both have been on a sharp downward trend due to their chaotic behavior. They’re not “cool” anymore and some brands, especially those that cater to younger demographics, don’t want to be associated with something that isn’t seen as cool anymore. And before you say Elon isn’t Twitter so why should they care, Elon has done a masterful job of making sure that in many people’s minds, they are the same brand.

by zen21 4y ago

Isn’t Elon the problem? This whole thing has been so public, including the text messages from the pre-trial, that anything he says now is like the emperor’s new clothes.

throw310822 4y ago

I frankly don't understand what the problem is. Advertisers should put ads on the platform if they bring in more revenue than they cost. Have they 1) decided that Twitter users are not worth the cost of the ads because they don't consume? Or are they 2) afraid that the content on the website might become so bad that seeing a brand advertised next to it will make the consumers less prone to buying their product? Or 3) are they afraid of being subjected to targeted campaigns from activists and politically motivated press because they didn't "cancel" Twitter? I don't think that the user base has changed so much yet, so 1) doesn't seem plausible; as for 2), I doubt that the content has already become so overwhelmingly bad that ads beside it could cause aversion in consumers (assuming these can't tell the difference between tweets and ads- newspapers advertise anything side to side with news on murder and terrorism, nobody objects). So it seems the problem can only be 3)- fear of being targeted by politically motivated campaigns.

zen21 4y ago
It’s #2. This is brand advertising, not product ads. It’s about the overall reputation of Twitter. Newspapers are a good analogy. Is Twitter more like the NYTimes, or the NYPost? That will determine who advertises.
- throw310822 4y ago
  Are people who don't read the NYPost really concerned with which brands advertise on the NYPost? And are US consumers so seriously engaged that they will punish a brand for advertising in the wrong newspaper- autonomously, without concerted campaigns to convince them to do so? And what is this "overall reputation" of a media, and how did Twitter's change so fast without yet (I presume) significant changes to its contents?
  - zen21 4y ago
    Your first paragraph has good questions that are all a part of how brand advertising works. This isn’t new. As for the second paragraph. If you don’t think Musk has changed twitter’s brand and reputation, then I think you are in a minority.
    - throw310822 4y ago
      I see that a lot of people talk about Twitter's reputation as changed. What I don't understand is whether this change is real and determined by an actual change of Twitter the product (yet), or because of a more or less concerted (and politically motivated) effort to pretend that the product has changed, because of a dislike of Musk. In the first case, advertisers actions (whatever their real motives) could be ethically justified and their decisions accepted as inevitable; in the second we should be worried that a political faction can wield such power through manipulation of consumers and market forces. (And of course, it could be a mix of both cases.)
      - zen21 4y ago
        As far as I can see, Twitter’s current problems are a result of Elon making decisions in service of the debt he created in order to purchase the company. He’s also fired a large number of people involved in content moderation, and compliance officers have simply resigned. The company is far less healthy now than it was before, and this is very public knowledge. Nothing to do with political factions, and all consequences of Elon’s decisions.
      - licebmi__at__ 4y ago
        Unless you think people hate Musk because of the look on his face, I don't know how can the two of them be separated. Disregarding whether you approve or reject Elon Musks opinions, it's absurd to think that Elon's takeover and pretty vocal announcement of change twitter to his vision wouldn't affect the brand and reputation. You can debate whether the changes should be of concern to advertisers (to which my opinion is that they obviously are), but it's undeniable that the brand has changed.
SonOfKyuss 4y ago
There’s probably a bit of all 3, but one factor you don’t mention is the chaos element that comes with Musk. Traditional brands like stability and whatever one’s feelings are about him, stability is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Elon Musk. For example, if Elon suddenly starts sharing pictures of himself giving a nazi salute and promoting holocaust denial, most brands won’t want to be associated with that. And given his history of pushing conspiracy theories, you really can’t rule anything out. So brands are backing off to see where this is all going, which would fall under option 2. See also: Kanye Edit because I remembered an even more obvious reason. When the first wave of advertisers left, which could be argued as “political activism” he named and shamed those brands with the implied threat of boycotts from his army of loyal followers. If I were in charge of a brand running ads on Twitter, that alone would make me question whether I want to continue to do business with them. You don’t threaten your customers and expect that to work out well for your business.
- throw310822 4y ago
  > For example, if Elon suddenly starts sharing pictures of himself giving a nazi salute and promoting holocaust denial, most brands won’t want to be associated with that. Brands can back out if and when that happens, no need to do it preemptively. And besides, an advertiser is not a business partner: there is no exclusive association between the brand and the advertisement outlet. Your next example shows the difference: > See also: Kanye Kanye is a business partner of the brands that sponsor him- they use his image to promote theirs. It makes perfect sense for them to stop their partnerships when his image is tarnished. But brands don't use Twitter's image to promote themselves, they just rent space to reach its users' eyeballs. > he named and shamed those brands with the implied threat of boycotts... No he didn't (threatened to, never actually did it afaik); but how come that brands are afraid of vague risks for the future of a platform they simply advertise on, and not with the much more credible risk of being boycotted by a few million customers who also happen to be Musk's fans?
  - SonOfKyuss 4y ago
    You’re really overcomplicating things to somehow try to make the richest person in the world out to be some kind of a victim of a woke mob. It’s simple. Brand advertising is all about trends. Twitter/Elon, and Kanye used to be trending up in popular culture. Brands wanted to be associated with them. Recently they both have been on a sharp downward trend due to their chaotic behavior. They’re not “cool” anymore and some brands, especially those that cater to younger demographics, don’t want to be associated with something that isn’t seen as cool anymore. And before you say Elon isn’t Twitter so why should they care, Elon has done a masterful job of making sure that in many people’s minds, they are the same brand.