3 ms·
At the end of the day it's supply and demand. When company A stops advertising it creates less demand so company B gets a lower price which may make advertising
by flessner 2y ago
At the end of the day it's supply and demand. When company A stops advertising it creates less demand so company B gets a lower price which may make advertising "worthwhile" again.
Assuming that companies were just distributing their marketing budget elsewhere twitter essentially became an outside option for companies that were willing to bear the "risks".
- throw310822 2y ago"worth less money" is not the same as "worth no money at all" as the gp wrote. If X were toxic to brand value, ads on X could only sell for a negative amount of money.
- woodruffw 2y agoThat's not really the operative part of my comment. It's my opinion that Twitter advertising is worth nothing, but it's clear that it's still worth something to the people who still pay for it. Just not as much as Twitter thinks it's worth.
- throw310822 2y ago> it's still worth something to the people who still pay for it. Sorry, you're being deliberately obtuse here. If what the lawsuit claims is true (irrespective of whether it's legal or not), ads on Twitter are still worth something also to those who DO NOT pay for them, because otherwise they would not need to collude with their competitors to make sure they're also boycotting. I'm not saying that this can be proved to be an anti-competitive behaviour. Just that it destroys the narrative of "ads on Twitter are a negative value for the brands that advertise there".