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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.