L’Oréal suspends advertising spending on Twitter | Hacker News Reader

L’Oréal suspends advertising spending on Twitter

ft.com

23 pointsmfiguiere35 comments

Open articleView on HN

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587899771091566595?cxt=...

Twitter Poll just posted:

Advertisers should support:

* Freedom of Speech

* Political Correctness

Does he realize he's the CEO of this company? I'm way too dumb for this 4d chess.

Well... if the choice is either freedom of speech or political correctness, I guess he has no choice but to let toxic personalities on the platform.

After all... freedom of speech is good, and political correctness is bad.

It's a shame the only choice is such a stark dichotomy. It's not 4D chess... dude has a 2-bit brain with a parity error.

It is a bit more consequential than being CEO. Musk owns the whole thing and pays for it himself

He brought this mess onto himself by himself. Let us keep in mind: he wanted out but he had to stick to the mess he created himself.

I still would not bet against him. We will know in a few years

Welp, looks like that tweet got censored^Wdeleted.

It is still there. 80% for free speech and 20% for political correctness with nearly a million votes.

It works fine.

I saw it deleted , and then refreshing undeleted. maybe he has a special soft-delete feature

(Edit: yeah, it does have news about more companies than just L'Oréal.)

I can't read the FT article, but does it have more info than this? https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-11-02/... No reason why, no named sources?

Rahul Ligma might be the source

If true, the reasoning is the same as GM's: they're uncertain about the future of content moderation on the platform.

None of this matters. Regardless of what Musk ends up doing, advertisers will return.

> Regardless of what Musk ends up doing

Wait really? Why do you think this, if he does succeed in turning into to hellscape he promised advertisers he wouldn't.

Nothing Musk allows Twitter to become will be worse than Tucker Carlson, and he has plenty of advertisers.

Advertisers pretend to have morals, but they go where eyeballs are in the end.

Fox News ad revenue is way lower than twitter and they are notorious for losing advertisers. Additionally I think they have a pretty narrow advertising base. I mean sure nothing to shake a stick at but not something you want to lean into if you want to grow from Twitters size

> I think they have a pretty narrow advertising base

Maybe the number of advertisers is going down, but their ad business is still doing well[1].

If someday their only two advertisers were ExxonMobil and the NRA, but they bought a combined total of $4B in ads, then Fox News would be doing incredibly well.

The same could be true for Twitter. The advertisers who don't care about the site's stigma may end up just snapping up more inventory, as Fox advertisers seem to have done.

1. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fox-corp-beat...

Huh Reuters said L’Oréal denies this report:

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/loral-suspe...

Can't believe it took 4 clowns - Hannah Murphy in San Francisco, Alistair Gray and Arjun Neil Alim in London and Leila Abboud - to make up this shit.

Musk doesn't own Twitter, advertisers do, and they will, until Twitter somehow finds alternative revenue sources. All the nonsense people post about "democratic oversight of Twitter", or "independent" policy enforcement boards, completely obfuscates this.

Most people are not being lucid enough: platforms didn't ban Trump because of some rigorous decision-making; they did so because they knew advertisers would destroy any platform that kept him on. Same with any other high-profile bans. Musk can't unban these people without advertisers crushing Twitter.

Keep in mind that bigger corporations spend a larger percentage of their revenues on marketing than SMBs. With Pareto's law, this means the largest corps in the world represent a huge fraction of ad spend. Twitter, news media, and all major online platforms are completely owned by the largest corporations on Earth.

In another more real sense, though, he owns Twitter.

Digg had the same misunderstanding. He owns some computers and a bit of IP. He doesn't own what makes it worth something. If people or advertisers leave, he has to turn the computers off since he can't afford to run them.

It's not like, a misunderstanding. Elon Musk literally owns Twitter.

Yes, I agreed with that. The computers and intellectual property (Twitter) he owns are worthless if he makes it so no one wants to be there. This is why I referred to Digg: the people in charge tanked their near $200m valuation thinking they didn't need to care about the users, and finally had to sell off the brand and domain for $500k.

Elon owns Twitter, the property. He does not own Twitter, the community. No community, no advertisers. No advertisers, no property unless he can do better than Google's pitiful results at finding an alternative to advertising.

So the community "owns" Twitter, not the advertisers. The users don't care about the advertisers jumping ship.

They will when Elon can't keep the lights on using subscriptions and fees to cover the $1B/year debt service.

If the advertisers leave and Twitter becomes a paid service, that seems like a good thing, doesn’t it?

just stop linking to these subscription websites, I'm sure there is a free article out there

https://archive.ph/drUqJ

non-paywalled copy:

https://archive.ph/drUqJ

How long will the seething and bellyaching continue on HN, forever? HAHA LOL ;-)

Interesting so they support Amber Heard by her being a spokes person for L’Oréal but they have issues with Elon Musk owning Twitter?

>Interesting so they support Amber Heard by her being a spokes person for L’Oréal...

Maybe they are positioning the company to buy out Depends...

https://www.depend.com/en-us/

Makeup, gross. Good riddance.

Also just in: it looks like this is fake news from a legacy media site.

What's wrong with makeup?

It smells bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com