3 ms·

> He says it not for virtue signaling but literally the 2nd point is virtue signaling. I think it means not for virtue signaling [about musk/twitter]. Avoidin

> He says it not for virtue signaling but literally the 2nd point is virtue signaling. I think it means not for virtue signaling [about musk/twitter]. Avoiding brand damage and other “common” virtue signaling (like sticking American flags on things for July 4th, sticking rainbows on things for pride, etc) are just called “marketing”. It’s standard operating procedure for someone looking to make money.

randyrand 4y ago
As a business owner, I advertise what my product can do, never once my personal beliefs. My political brand image is not important to my product, and could only hurt me. That said, I am more fortunate in the space I am in (no competitors, clear utility). (edit: I agree that he may have been referring to virtue signaling about Musk specifically, hard to say.)
- helen___keller 4y ago
  Regardless I think the point of the original post on blind was “I don’t care about musk or twitters acquisition drama, but for other reasons we are cutting twitter ad spend” I think this is supposed to be in contrast to the ubiquitous posts about “I can’t trust twitter because Elon is a bad man that’s why I’m cutting my ad spend”
- skyyler 4y ago
  It's not virtue signaling to not want your brand displayed next to hateful content. Brand safety isn't just avoiding "things you personally don't like" it's avoiding "things your customers have negative associations with that could transfer to your brand"... I don't care what political party death threats are directed at, I don't want my ad displayed next to a death threat. It's not a moral objection, it's a business decision.
  - randyrand 4y ago
    They would do their best to distance themself from encouraging the threat itself, but if ads next to death threats lead to a lot of views and purchases most advertisers would undoubtedly jump at the opportunity. Case in point: Any news company. 95% of their content is about objectionable actions taken by objectionable people. But ad money rolls in despite being placed next to crime, rape, murder, racism, war, and yes, even death threats. They’re literally monetizing crime. Being advertised next to something is not necessarily an endorsement of that thing. They’re orthogonal
    - skyyler 4y ago
      Advertisers care DEEPLY about the things that surround their brand when it comes up in an ad. Your case in point... advertisers regularly try to get news companies to not run certain stories. Advertisers are rarely successful, but it does happen! https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 Advertisers have a lot more say about the morals we have in modern times than you think. "female presenting nipples"
    - viraptor 4y ago
      There's a big difference between reporting about something (people choosing to read the news, getting ads on the side), and advertising the threats (people see that advert they didn't expect next to your advert they didn't expect). Your initial assertion doesn't hold either. For example you can advertise through TrafficJunky way cheaper than on social media. Yet most companies don't.
      - randyrand 4y ago
        I agree there is a difference. But the assertion was the advertisers don’t want to be next to crime, racism, etc. I’m just giving a simple example that, largely, it is not true. You can be next to unsavory things and still get tons of ads, if you do it right.
        skyyler 4y ago
        Maybe you don't notice the effects that your brand being next to stuff like porn has because you're not operating at the scale where that sort of thing matters? You're probably not running national or global ad campaigns.

randyrand 4y ago

As a business owner, I advertise what my product can do, never once my personal beliefs. My political brand image is not important to my product, and could only hurt me. That said, I am more fortunate in the space I am in (no competitors, clear utility). (edit: I agree that he may have been referring to virtue signaling about Musk specifically, hard to say.)

helen___keller 4y ago
Regardless I think the point of the original post on blind was “I don’t care about musk or twitters acquisition drama, but for other reasons we are cutting twitter ad spend” I think this is supposed to be in contrast to the ubiquitous posts about “I can’t trust twitter because Elon is a bad man that’s why I’m cutting my ad spend”
skyyler 4y ago
It's not virtue signaling to not want your brand displayed next to hateful content. Brand safety isn't just avoiding "things you personally don't like" it's avoiding "things your customers have negative associations with that could transfer to your brand"... I don't care what political party death threats are directed at, I don't want my ad displayed next to a death threat. It's not a moral objection, it's a business decision.
- randyrand 4y ago
  They would do their best to distance themself from encouraging the threat itself, but if ads next to death threats lead to a lot of views and purchases most advertisers would undoubtedly jump at the opportunity. Case in point: Any news company. 95% of their content is about objectionable actions taken by objectionable people. But ad money rolls in despite being placed next to crime, rape, murder, racism, war, and yes, even death threats. They’re literally monetizing crime. Being advertised next to something is not necessarily an endorsement of that thing. They’re orthogonal
  - skyyler 4y ago
    Advertisers care DEEPLY about the things that surround their brand when it comes up in an ad. Your case in point... advertisers regularly try to get news companies to not run certain stories. Advertisers are rarely successful, but it does happen! https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 Advertisers have a lot more say about the morals we have in modern times than you think. "female presenting nipples"
  - viraptor 4y ago
    There's a big difference between reporting about something (people choosing to read the news, getting ads on the side), and advertising the threats (people see that advert they didn't expect next to your advert they didn't expect). Your initial assertion doesn't hold either. For example you can advertise through TrafficJunky way cheaper than on social media. Yet most companies don't.
    - randyrand 4y ago
      I agree there is a difference. But the assertion was the advertisers don’t want to be next to crime, racism, etc. I’m just giving a simple example that, largely, it is not true. You can be next to unsavory things and still get tons of ads, if you do it right.
      - skyyler 4y ago
        Maybe you don't notice the effects that your brand being next to stuff like porn has because you're not operating at the scale where that sort of thing matters? You're probably not running national or global ad campaigns.