Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_unknown | Hacker News Reader

And yes, he's absolutely correct. Some advertisers such as the big Canadian banks aren't even hiding it now switching from announcing a boycott to a limited-time withdrawal: "Participating brands will suspend all advertising on the platform for the month of July."

https://globalnews.ca/news/7129688/facebook-boycott-canada-b...

View on HN

Nobody was ever hiding that the boycott is for July; the call for the boycott says so in the first line. Some companies decided to go for more than a month but that's their choice.

> On June 17, Color Of Change along with the NAACP, ADL, Sleeping Giants, Free Press, and Common Sense Media called on Facebook’s advertisers to hit pause on ad spending for July 2020

> https://colorofchange.org/stop-hate-for-profit/

That's actually very well played. You know that companies want to hit pause because of lower sales and less consumer confidence, so you give them an easy out that will look like a moral stance, and you wisely limit the duration so that nobody feels too committed and can return to business as usual if Covid-19-related slow downs come to an end by the end of July.

Or, they could just stop the advertising because of budget issues.

Supporting the boycott may be unpopular with some demographics. So maybe, just maybe, there's something to it.

> Or, they could just stop the advertising because of budget issues.

Oh, certainly. My point isn't that they're doing it because of principles. The companies do it because they want to save money. But offering them an out that allows them do press pause but not say "we have bad sales" and gets them lots of good will in important media circles, that's a good play imho.

Especially the very limited length looks like that to me. Had they said "to boycott Facebook ads", no large business in their right mind would've gone through with it. Even with "boycott FB for a year", I don't think so. But for a month, while business has slowed down significantly and you're happy to cut back in spending? That's an easy yes.

And for the organizers it's a win as well, as they can say that they got some large companies backing their cause. It's a smart play.

It wouldn't particularly surprise me if none of the vast majority of the public, HN commenters or the companies that signed up for it had actually read the boycott documentation so that might not be as important as it seems.

Is there a big list of all of the companies taking part?

The list is probably longer now, but here's one from late June: https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1276681468119572481

https://www.stophateforprofit.org/participating-businesses

Kind of a sad excuse for a list. Can't see it moving the needle where it affects share price.

It’ll continue beyond July. This quote may have changed everything. If he’s trying to become the silicon trump he is certainly getting there. Unsurprisingly both are clearly sociopaths.

You think a quote he made to his own employees, painting the company in a strong light, will change everything?

So because he won't kowtow to the demands of what he says is a threat to a small percentage of the company's revenue, he is now Trump?

Is there a list of mobs you believe companies should kneel before, lest you deem them to be in-line with Trump?

FB should offer a "limited-time" discount for advertisers, subsidized by rate hike when those boycotting return.

In a way, they _do_ have a limited-time discount. Facebook's ad prices are set by an auction. If there are less advertisers competing during the boycott, the prices will be lower.

Ad rates are down, and I know several publishers, whose ads are monetizing well, are using this opportunity to increase FB spending . Like, buying hand over fist

I can see the rationale for this. Companies that publicly boycott Facebook harm Facebook's reputation (which in turn hurts Facebook's bottom line). These companies now pose a higher risk (given past behaviour) of publicly boycotting Facebook in future. So Facebook should insure against this risk by charging a 'boycott risk premium' (through higher advertising rates) for companies that are a proven public boycott risk.

Why would this be a good idea? It sounds like a "punishment."

They're a private platform, they can do what they like?

I think you got "should" and "can" mixed up.

And companies pressured by CNN to "boycott" should withdraw their ads from CNN IMO.

A more interesting question is what if advertisers did not come back? Does Facebook have a "Plan B" for how they would sustain themselves?

What would happen if advertisers pulled out and Facebook fell on hard times? Would someone else acquire every detail of your life that you shared with Facebook? What happens if Facebook fails? Do they send your data back to you with a note saying "Thanks for the loan"?

> What would happen if advertisers pulled out and Facebook fell on hard times?

This is very unlikely, as Facebook has more money than it knows what to do with and will easily weather this storm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to defend the company, but this is the reality: Companies who say they are boycotting Facebook are only doing it as a PR stunt. Give a few months, and you'll see their ads back on your News Feed.

What I meant was not this particular instance but the future. Long term not short term. Is Facebook immortal? Companies, even the biggest ones, usually have a shelf life.

Facebook buys out their competitors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com