Comment by throw310822 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw310822 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

> You can debate whether the changes should be of concern to advertisers (to which my opinion is that they obviously are)

This is where we disagree. While our opinion of the company has undoubtedly changed (e.g. I wouldn't want to work there now given the type of pressure Musk puts on his employees) I don't think the internal working of a company is much of a concern for advertisers (except in the case of gross violations)- and I didn't see major changes happening yet in the product.

Advertisers' decision appears preemptive, they are clearly afraid of the possibility of being accused later of not having pulled out before anything happened. But accused by whom, and according to which principle?

> I don't think the internal working of a company is much of a concern for advertisers

Generally this is true because normally the internal working of a company isn’t public and doesn’t affect its image. With Elon’s takeover of Twitter, nothing could be further from the truth.

> they are clearly afraid of the possibility of being accused later of not having pulled out before anything happened. But accused by whom, and according to which principle?

It’s not unfair to suppose they they are afraid of being associated with something that happens in the future. Brand advertising is generally conservative that way. The whole point of it is to be associated with things that are cool and well liked. The chaos of musk’s takeover has obviously already undermined that sentiment and there is certainly risk that bad things may happen.

However the idea that they are afraid of being accused of something, is just a fiction. There’s nothing to support this view.

They just want to be associated with something cool, and Twitter isn’t cool. Their spending is on pause because Elon has introduced uncertainty, and if Twitter returns to stability or even starts on a reliable upward trajectory, they will be falling over themselves to be associated with it again.

Elon has done severe damage to Twitter’s brand, and frankly his own. Can he recover? It seems possible, but not obvious he knows how or that it matters to him. He’s not a victim. Who cares what people think of him? He’s the richest man in the world for now, and that gives him the freedom not to be concerned about that.

> They just want to be associated with something cool, and Twitter isn’t cool

Ok. I disagree: advertising has nothing to do with coolness (the WP or NYT aren't cool, they're read by good customers). Coolness has to do with sponsorships, a different concept. Besides, while someone might notice the start or end of a business relationship with Twitter, no one will derive negative associations by a brand simply doing nothing. Unless someone else makes a fuss about it. This seems crystal clear to me.

> (the WP or NYT aren't cool, they're read by good customers)

It’s fair to say ‘cool’ is too narrow a word. Feel free to substitute ‘has positive associations’.

> no one will derive negative associations by a brand simply doing nothing. Unless someone else makes a fuss about it. This seems crystal clear to me

It seems crystal clear to you, and yet you have provided no explanation for it. It just seems like a belief you have that isn’t shared by brand advertisers.

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.

> 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?

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.

> the much more credible risk of being boycotted by a few million customers who also happen to be Musk's fans

This doesn’t seem credible at all. You make it seem like he’s some kind of cult leader, which he is not. People find him fascinating as a tabloid character because he’s the richest man in the world for now. That’s all.

People were fascinated by Gates, and later Bezos when they had that title, but now nobody pays them any serious attention.

> You make it seem like he’s some kind of cult leader

Not at all (though there is certainly a small subset of... devotees). But he's definitely someone who has a huge audience.

You, on your end, seem to assume that people will on their own make a negative association between a brand and one of the tens or hundreds of outlets it advertises on- one they possibly don't even read- and consequently change their spending behaviour. I don't believe this is true. I believe that the only way a brand can get reputational damage for advertising in the wrong place (and possibly for just anything) is to be singled out and subjected to a shaming campaign by multiple media. Shrugging it off as "it's just how the people behaves, we need to protect ourselves" is wilfully ignoring the main actor in this dynamic, the other media and influencers directing the public opinion.

> You, on your end, seem to assume that people will on their own make a negative association between a brand and one of the tens or hundreds of outlets it advertises on- one they possibly don't even read- and consequently change their spending behaviour.

I didn’t say anything about my beliefs. I’m simply explaining how brand advertising works.

> I don't believe this is true.

Ok.

> I believe that the only way a brand can get reputational damage for advertising in the wrong place (and possibly for just anything) is to be singled out and subjected to a shaming campaign by multiple media.

That is a very specific belief. Why do you believe it?

> I’m simply explaining how brand advertising works.

You just claimed to know how it works and that your opinion is correct.

Maybe you could provide me with an example of a brand losing sales because of one of these negative associations- before the media had noticed it and brought it to the light. Surely if it's common practice for brands to stop advertising on media that are "uncool", there must have been events in the past that have taught them a lesson. Curious if you know any.

> You just claimed to know how it works and that your opinion is correct.

No I didn’t. This is easily googled and not a matter of my opinion. You don’t need to take my word for it.

> Surely if it's common practice for brands to stop advertising on media that are "uncool", there must have been events in the past that have taught them a lesson.

That doesn’t logically follow. It’s simply about avoiding negative associations. Brand damage is hard to repair, so brand advertising by established brands tends to be conservative - I.e. they don’t advertise in questionable places and wait for the damage.

Brand marketing is about building associations in peoples minds. Again - don’t take my word for it - do some reading about branding.

> Brands can back out if and when that happens, no need to do it preemptively

Risk aversion is about doing or not doing things in _advance_ to avoid an undesirable outcome. There are plenty of places for them to advertise at, so it only makes sense to avoid risks on a platform that is (by design!) going through extremely turbulent and chaotic changes.

Remember, many of these advertisers have already reached out with specific questions and assurances and got the equivalent of a shrug and a blank stare from the new platform owner. This is already a "reactive" step.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com