Comment by SonOfKyuss | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SonOfKyuss | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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