General Mills, Audi pause Twitter ads, will evaluate site(apnews.com)
apnews.com
General Mills, Audi pause Twitter ads, will evaluate site
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-inc-technology-business-0bafafecbcf4cbae2f484d83d483b168
16 comments
>Twitter desperately needs these advertisers but for these brands the ad spend is in low single digits and the possibility of harming their brand just simply isn't worth it.
What percent of Twitter's revenue did these advertisers make up?
What percent of Twitter's revenue did these advertisers make up?
More than that, how elastic is the demand for ads on Twitter? Were these companies barely outbidding for the slots? If there is a drop in CPM, will it bounce back from reallocated ad spend from other platforms? Hell, I've build dashboards to compare cost per conversion for different platforms for exactly this purpose.
When I say these advertisers I mean the large, multinational, corporate ones.
The whales that for a company like Twitter would be a large percentage of their revenue.
The whales that for a company like Twitter would be a large percentage of their revenue.
Not necessarily, if they are more DR focused then none of this matters.
philipov(2)
Twitter’s content was a cesspool and has been for years. I’m not sure what additional harm these brands are worried about.
There's a difference between "we're doing a bad job but we're trying to moderate content" & "we've cut back on even trying and some of the advertiser unfriendly content is coming from the CEO"
It's very concerning that Elon's posts have so many comments but he's replying to so many far right crazies and conspiracy nuts comments.
Is it at all surprising though considering his past statements?
Is there though? I’m not sure Twitter was really even trying. Or if that was the result of them trying, that’s pretty sad.
I don’t think there’s a difference between “we say we’re trying and are completely incompetent” and whatever Twitter is doing now.
I don’t think there’s a difference between “we say we’re trying and are completely incompetent” and whatever Twitter is doing now.
This is a big change, which is evoking some powerful reactions in people - it's pretty obvious that a company might want to get some distance between its brand and the maelstrom. They can always come back later, when things calm down.
This way, if nothing happens, they can always come back silently (or spinning the story in a way they want). If some PR disaster happens, they are safely away from it.
For me, this was to be expected and is a testament of how important Twitter has become in the marketing world that it isn't bleeding out advertisers even quicker.
This way, if nothing happens, they can always come back silently (or spinning the story in a way they want). If some PR disaster happens, they are safely away from it.
For me, this was to be expected and is a testament of how important Twitter has become in the marketing world that it isn't bleeding out advertisers even quicker.
Once Tesla starts advertising on Twitter, just you watch all those car companies will come right back.
Advertising spend is material info and if your competitor's CEO now potentially has access to that that's legitimate cause for concern.
From what I understand, they are going to wait until it's clear how much of a conflict of interest him being CEO of Twitter (in terms of advertising) + Tesla is.
From what I understand, they are going to wait until it's clear how much of a conflict of interest him being CEO of Twitter (in terms of advertising) + Tesla is.
> a conflict of interest
why would it be a conflict of interest, unless the CEO of twitter is deliberately stopping car companies from advertising on twitter?
why would it be a conflict of interest, unless the CEO of twitter is deliberately stopping car companies from advertising on twitter?
Because the CEO of Twitter will receive information on what their competitors are spending on advertising and can use that to calibrate decisions as CEO of Tesla, while the CEOs of the competing car companies do not get any such info
Musk's personal account on Twitter is and was the Marketing Department for Tesla.
They don't have to start advertising, because they have never had to buy ads, people are willing to talk about them for free, and a lot of that discourse was due to Musk's tweets.
They don't have to start advertising, because they have never had to buy ads, people are willing to talk about them for free, and a lot of that discourse was due to Musk's tweets.
That is such an overestimation of the reach and influence of the Twitter platform. People buy Teslas because they're awesome cars. People find out about Tesla because everyone and their brother has one. It started slow, you knew a guy who knew a guy, but they preached its praises. It slowly snowballed. They're to the point now, where you can't not find out about them. Twitter IMHO played a deminimus role in that. Normal people in the normal world aren't obsessing over Elon's tweets, or even reading about them.
Literally no one I know with Teslas (and it's many many) even using Twitter.
Furthermore, there are many other high-profile companies that are extremely well known that simply opt not to advertise. Look at Costco. There's no Twitter mouthpiece and no advertising yet everyone either shops there or knows about it, but doesn't shop there.
Literally no one I know with Teslas (and it's many many) even using Twitter.
Furthermore, there are many other high-profile companies that are extremely well known that simply opt not to advertise. Look at Costco. There's no Twitter mouthpiece and no advertising yet everyone either shops there or knows about it, but doesn't shop there.
This may be true in the USA, but not in the rest of the world. I live in Europe and, even if I often drive by a Tesla dealer on my way to work, don't know that many people driving one. Basically all the discourse I hear about Tesla comes from the Internet (and most of it from Twitter, even if I don't actually use that site).
The next time I have to buy a car, my decision to buy or not a Tesla will be heavily influenced by the information I already have, which comes from there (obviously, I'll also take other things into account and even pay a visit to the dealer - but still, I wouldn't consider it if nobody told me anything about the brand).
The next time I have to buy a car, my decision to buy or not a Tesla will be heavily influenced by the information I already have, which comes from there (obviously, I'll also take other things into account and even pay a visit to the dealer - but still, I wouldn't consider it if nobody told me anything about the brand).
Absolutely, completely wrong. All of what your wrote. Musk's Twitter has given Tesla hundreds of billions of advertising equivalent exposure.
Yikes, if that equivalence is true then Twitter advertising has a horrible ROI. Less than $1 of sales per dollar of advertising is not a good look.
Hundreds of billions.
I could believe, maybe, 'millions'. A hundred thousand dollars buys you a lot of ads on twitter.
I could believe, maybe, 'millions'. A hundred thousand dollars buys you a lot of ads on twitter.
Whoosh. Musk's tweets gets him into newspapers and magazines globally. Thousands of them. TV too. You can't buy that kind of advertising.
Yeah sure, but he wants to funnel money into Twitter somehow.
Feel free to skip this comment. Sometimes I write comments for HN and then delete them. I almost deleted this one (which means I probably should have). This is what's in my head.
-----
Why didn't Tesla buy Twitter? Why could Tesla start spending massive amounts of money on Twitter Ads if it couldn't buy it?
SolarCity was in a related field, which was at least a fig leaf or minimal justification. There's no real justification to buy Twitter or buy ad space on Twitter.
Elon is not actually the god emperor of Tesla. He's been able to sell all of his decisions as improving the future of Tesla (and thus humanity). Of course I could be completely wrong here; I don't have a crystal ball.
-----
I think about how we might get to a post-scarcity society, and what post-scarcity means. People like Gene Roddenberry have done a great job portraying this future, but not how we get there.
Much of our political discourse is between people who disagree about whether or not we are living in a time of scarcity or post-scarcity. Many people in the city live in the low-scarcity mindset. Many people in the country live in a scarcity mindset. This isn't determinative, it's relative. Just being one place or the other does not dictate how you view the world, but it is indicative.
We don't talk about scarcity directly in political speech. It's a deep assumption about the world. It's so deep you may not have even realized that you had taken a side before now.
Are taxes and economic activity a zero-sum game? Obviously the other side is wrong, why would you even entertain the question?
----
Why the fuck did I bring up Star Trek and post-scarcity? Because Twitter is a place where fights happen. I'm very happy that people are sending tweets instead of bombs, but we have to continue advancing our level of discourse, and I'm not at all convinced that online public speech is the way to do that; I'm especially not convinced that we can do that in short form; and I'm especially especially convinced that the process of advancing the discourse will not be funded by ads.
-----
Why didn't Tesla buy Twitter? Why could Tesla start spending massive amounts of money on Twitter Ads if it couldn't buy it?
SolarCity was in a related field, which was at least a fig leaf or minimal justification. There's no real justification to buy Twitter or buy ad space on Twitter.
Elon is not actually the god emperor of Tesla. He's been able to sell all of his decisions as improving the future of Tesla (and thus humanity). Of course I could be completely wrong here; I don't have a crystal ball.
-----
I think about how we might get to a post-scarcity society, and what post-scarcity means. People like Gene Roddenberry have done a great job portraying this future, but not how we get there.
Much of our political discourse is between people who disagree about whether or not we are living in a time of scarcity or post-scarcity. Many people in the city live in the low-scarcity mindset. Many people in the country live in a scarcity mindset. This isn't determinative, it's relative. Just being one place or the other does not dictate how you view the world, but it is indicative.
We don't talk about scarcity directly in political speech. It's a deep assumption about the world. It's so deep you may not have even realized that you had taken a side before now.
Are taxes and economic activity a zero-sum game? Obviously the other side is wrong, why would you even entertain the question?
----
Why the fuck did I bring up Star Trek and post-scarcity? Because Twitter is a place where fights happen. I'm very happy that people are sending tweets instead of bombs, but we have to continue advancing our level of discourse, and I'm not at all convinced that online public speech is the way to do that; I'm especially not convinced that we can do that in short form; and I'm especially especially convinced that the process of advancing the discourse will not be funded by ads.
Maybe Audi's next ad can be "Buy Audi cars, our CEO isn't a bumbling fool who blew $44B on a toy and then decided to sledgehammer it to pieces."...
Audi has just decided to enter F1 though, which may have a similar outcome...
I thought Tesla is not doing advertising. Has that changed?
It will now. One of Elon’s tricks is moving money between his companies. Often at the expense of shareholders.
This is a serious allegation, can you provide supporting information?
SolarCity was purchased to bail out Elon's cousins from their financial mismanagement (which was largely due to them listening to Elon about how to run the company).
Boring Co used SpaceX and Tesla engineers for preliminary engineering work (and also for the Vegas tunnel) without reimbursing either company, and Boring Co used SpaceX's Hawthorne parking lot for its original test tube without leasing the land. BoringCo has not paid for the Teslas it uses, it received them for free. (As Tesla claims not to spend any money on marketing, giving these Teslas could not have been a marketing expense for Tesla unless they deliberately misrepresenting their financial statements, which is an entirely separate can of worms.)
Tesla didn't pay SpaceX to send a Tesla into space. (See above.)
Twitter used Tesla engineers, without reimbursement, to evaluate code just last week.
Boring Co used SpaceX and Tesla engineers for preliminary engineering work (and also for the Vegas tunnel) without reimbursing either company, and Boring Co used SpaceX's Hawthorne parking lot for its original test tube without leasing the land. BoringCo has not paid for the Teslas it uses, it received them for free. (As Tesla claims not to spend any money on marketing, giving these Teslas could not have been a marketing expense for Tesla unless they deliberately misrepresenting their financial statements, which is an entirely separate can of worms.)
Tesla didn't pay SpaceX to send a Tesla into space. (See above.)
Twitter used Tesla engineers, without reimbursement, to evaluate code just last week.
This is not moving money.
Well Tesla bailed out SolarCity, a clear conflict of interest. Elon won the Tesla shareholder suit, basically on a technicality, but everyone can see what actually happened there.
That’s not moving money that’s buying assets.
I don't think so. They'll just see them for what they are - house ads designed to fill up unused inventory.
[deleted]
"Musk says Twitter has had revenue drop as advertisers pause spending" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33468630
Volkswagen and Audi is the same company - but yeah.
Depends on your definition of company. They've got the same owner for sure, but they've got separate marketing divisions with separate budgets etc afaik
This is why 8$ is a good idea - the bird will never be free when it can easily be blackmailed by advertisers.
This popular opinion both overestimates how much consumers will pay for Internet services and underestimates how much advertising space is worth to advertisers.
One of the fundamental misunderstandings comes from the fact that one's usage of a site like Twitter is generally worth more to the ad-buying community than to the users themselves. This is why Facebook, arguably the strongest social platform, does not charge its users.
Also, users create the content so charging them means you have less inventory to sell.
One of the fundamental misunderstandings comes from the fact that one's usage of a site like Twitter is generally worth more to the ad-buying community than to the users themselves. This is why Facebook, arguably the strongest social platform, does not charge its users.
Also, users create the content so charging them means you have less inventory to sell.
Twitter paid membership, broadly speaking, is a good idea. The specific plan Musk has to reuse blue ticks to mean something entirely different (and totally devalue them) however… that’s a bad idea.
> This is why 8$ is a good idea - the bird will never be free when it can easily be blackmailed by advertisers.
They’d need something like 20% of what Musk claims is their fake, bot-inflated mDAU—far more than existing blue checks, Blue subscribers, and “heavy tweeters” combined—subscribed at $8 to substitute for advertisers.
They’d need something like 20% of what Musk claims is their fake, bot-inflated mDAU—far more than existing blue checks, Blue subscribers, and “heavy tweeters” combined—subscribed at $8 to substitute for advertisers.
They don't need to substitute all advertisers, just activist ones wanting to influence Twitter policies.
I don't think there's a lot of advertisers trying to influence Twitter policy. Rather, they just don't want their ads by certain content.
Advertisers that care what content their ads can be shown around are pretty much all of them. Image management isn’t incidental to advertising, it is the whole point.
I think you misunderstand how much of it is activism vs risk avoidance.
Make Twitter premium ad free and bundle with that the feature to curate my timeline as I see fit (no "suggestions", chronological by default).
Do this and I will gladly pay ~$5 a month for Twitter.
But $8 for a blue checkmark and ads? No thank you. I will certainly not pay a company that still treats me like a commodity if I can avoid it.
But $8 for a blue checkmark and ads? No thank you. I will certainly not pay a company that still treats me like a commodity if I can avoid it.
> But $8 for a blue checkmark and ads?
The $8 is for algorithmic juice for your tweets and half the normal ads, as well as the blue check.
The $8 is for algorithmic juice for your tweets and half the normal ads, as well as the blue check.
Then Elon increases default Adload by 100% and he makes just as much money and still collects 8$
People are not that stupid
People are not that stupid
The users who will pay $8/mo are the ones who will be advertising themselves and their content/art/opinions like substack pundits, influencers, streamers, etc.
$8 check marks are never gonna make a significant dent in Twitter's expenses...
He would need about 12-13M people to sign up to cover the $1bn/year debt interest. Going to be interesting to see how far he gets in that...
[edit: hedge between 12M and 13M]
[edit: hedge between 12M and 13M]
> This is why 8$ is a good idea
An ad-independent revenue source is a good idea, but not the blue checkmark program, as it currently means some kind of identity verification, and 'random' folks having it may cause problems:
> Want to call yourself Citibank Password Verification? Here's your blue tick, thanks for the $8. Want to say you're the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and announce you're abolishing the police? $8. Call yourself WXBM Local News Arkansas and invent a school shooting? Yours for $8
> Trump is banned? No problem, you can be Trump for 8 dollars, verified by Twitter. Or you can be Barron Trump and "expose the dark truth about your parents". Whatever. Go mad.
* https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1588306300450263041
An ad-independent revenue source is a good idea, but not the blue checkmark program, as it currently means some kind of identity verification, and 'random' folks having it may cause problems:
> Want to call yourself Citibank Password Verification? Here's your blue tick, thanks for the $8. Want to say you're the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and announce you're abolishing the police? $8. Call yourself WXBM Local News Arkansas and invent a school shooting? Yours for $8
> Trump is banned? No problem, you can be Trump for 8 dollars, verified by Twitter. Or you can be Barron Trump and "expose the dark truth about your parents". Whatever. Go mad.
* https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1588306300450263041
> as it currently means some kind of identity verification
No. Many random people have been given blue ticks. Some people happen to just wake up and have a blue tick. I doubt many celebs went through the process of identity verification.
Journalists basically get it for free regardless of their journalistic ability or follower count. They could sign up to Twitter after getting a job at CNN and get blue tick.
Blue tick as it is right now is an abused meaningless system now.
No. Many random people have been given blue ticks. Some people happen to just wake up and have a blue tick. I doubt many celebs went through the process of identity verification.
Journalists basically get it for free regardless of their journalistic ability or follower count. They could sign up to Twitter after getting a job at CNN and get blue tick.
Blue tick as it is right now is an abused meaningless system now.
> I doubt many celebs went through the process of identity verification.
That's OK. Twitter verification was "Twitter verified this person's identity", not "this person asked Twitter to verify their identity". Twitter can and should do so proactively in scenarios like this.
> Journalists basically get it for free regardless of their journalistic ability or follower count.
Yes, they're one of the specific categories permitted to apply laid out at https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twit....
That's OK. Twitter verification was "Twitter verified this person's identity", not "this person asked Twitter to verify their identity". Twitter can and should do so proactively in scenarios like this.
> Journalists basically get it for free regardless of their journalistic ability or follower count.
Yes, they're one of the specific categories permitted to apply laid out at https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twit....
If he requires anyone that wants to use the API to be a verified subscriber, then he’ll kill a lot of bots abusing the api. I would not be shocked if they calculated bandwidth costs of spamming Twitter, and putting an order of magnitude prohibitive price on it.
Which is irrelevant. The $8 per 'verified' user will never be enough to cover expenses or offset the lost advertising revenue.
Pretty soon everything on the internet is gonna cost much more than it does today I'm afraid.
A lot of these low prices are subsidized by venture capital as the companies chase market share.
For example, Spotify is ludicrously underpriced. Less than 10 bucks a month to hear basically every song ever recorded? Not sure that can last.
A lot of these low prices are subsidized by venture capital as the companies chase market share.
For example, Spotify is ludicrously underpriced. Less than 10 bucks a month to hear basically every song ever recorded? Not sure that can last.
> Less than 10 bucks a month to hear basically every song ever recorded? Not sure that can last.
When it launched, it had to compete with "free" via piracy.
When it launched, it had to compete with "free" via piracy.
Spotify also notoriously underpays musicians; their cost per stream is less than their competitors[0], and they are betting heavily on regulatory action to lower costs further[1]. So it’s not just VC subsidies, but also other unsustainable distortions.
[0] https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts
[1] https://www.musicweek.com/digital/read/spotify-tells-competi...
[0] https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts
[1] https://www.musicweek.com/digital/read/spotify-tells-competi...
Free for who to do what with?
Sure, “the bird” will be free, in a sense, when it’s profitable and doesn’t care about advertisers, but that freedom is free for Elon to do whatever he wants with it.
Not freedom for users or in any other (actually good) sense of that bloated meaningless word.
Sure, “the bird” will be free, in a sense, when it’s profitable and doesn’t care about advertisers, but that freedom is free for Elon to do whatever he wants with it.
Not freedom for users or in any other (actually good) sense of that bloated meaningless word.
If Twitter can be so easily blackmailed by advertisers, what do we think about traditional media, where Pfizer is often the biggest advertiser?
Sorry if I am being dangerous/spreading misinformation, just asking the question
Sorry if I am being dangerous/spreading misinformation, just asking the question
This is a real problem! I remember Peter Oborne resigning from the Telegraph over failing to cover HSBC because they were an advertiser. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-oborne-t...
The reverse is quite clear in how various Gulf states like Qatar buy lots of advertising for the state as a whole .. with the unspoken assumption that their poor human rights record won't be mentioned as much.
The reverse is quite clear in how various Gulf states like Qatar buy lots of advertising for the state as a whole .. with the unspoken assumption that their poor human rights record won't be mentioned as much.
Blackmailing is when you demand payment/value from someone in return for not revealing damaging information about them.
How are advertisers blackmailing Twitter?
How are advertisers blackmailing Twitter?
I was only picking up on the term as used by OP. The reality may be closer to extortion (in the colloquial sense)
What logical reason would Pfizer have other than damaging information being revealed about them?
They sell medicine, people don't pick what medicine they get for the most part, their doctor does. (yes there are exceptions) The number of people who would push back against a medicine because "pfizer had ads next a twitter post with racial epithets" seem vanishingly small.
They sell medicine, people don't pick what medicine they get for the most part, their doctor does. (yes there are exceptions) The number of people who would push back against a medicine because "pfizer had ads next a twitter post with racial epithets" seem vanishingly small.
I'm surprised to be saying this, but it seems like so many of the tech start ups are just media companies that sell ads.
I just read a book about HBO, (tinderbox by James Andrew miller). It's amazing how many things were similar in the 80's compared to today. One example, HBO was using subscriptions to finance shows just like Netflix does today. There's dozens of other examples.
The more things change the more they stay the same...
I just read a book about HBO, (tinderbox by James Andrew miller). It's amazing how many things were similar in the 80's compared to today. One example, HBO was using subscriptions to finance shows just like Netflix does today. There's dozens of other examples.
The more things change the more they stay the same...
> One example, HBO was using subscriptions to finance shows just like Netflix does today.
Aren't they still doing this ?
Aren't they still doing this ?
This shouldn't be surprising, of the FAANG they all have elements of taking advertising money, for some it is their entire business model/cash cow. Up until recently N wasn't doing advertising.
It seems like that is the only solution Tech companies have to the constant growth cycle imperative that they or the shareholders imposes on them.
It seems like that is the only solution Tech companies have to the constant growth cycle imperative that they or the shareholders imposes on them.
It’s funny. I watched the Social Dillemma and thought we were doomed.
Maybe the way to fix social media is to just have Twitter die by whatever Musk is doing and Facebook die from trying to become the metaverse.
I hope they pull ads from Facebook and Instagram next. In fact, Im pretty sure the world will be ok if Audi and Genera Mills ceased to exist. Imagine how many fewer kids will get diabetes if Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Lucky Charms blinked out of existence.
Maybe the way to fix social media is to just have Twitter die by whatever Musk is doing and Facebook die from trying to become the metaverse.
I hope they pull ads from Facebook and Instagram next. In fact, Im pretty sure the world will be ok if Audi and Genera Mills ceased to exist. Imagine how many fewer kids will get diabetes if Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Lucky Charms blinked out of existence.
If Twitter and Facebook went bankrupt tomorrow, other, not necessarily better, social networks would surely step in to take their place. Same goes for car makers or makers of sugary foods.
Perhaps, or maybe it was a fad and people will move on to some other vice.
Facebook is different than MySpace and Friendster. So it’s not really that easy to just clone an existing service.
Facebook is different than MySpace and Friendster. So it’s not really that easy to just clone an existing service.
Maybe it's because I'm Minnesotan (been living here for 20+ years now, time to call myself one), but we'd eat Cinnamon Toasters and Marshmallow Mateys instead.
Malt-O-Meal FTW: https://www.maltomeal.com/
Malt-O-Meal FTW: https://www.maltomeal.com/
> Imagine how many fewer kids will get diabetes if Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Lucky Charms blinked out of existence.
Unscientific gut feeling guess: sugary sodas need to go waaay before the cereals.
Unscientific gut feeling guess: sugary sodas need to go waaay before the cereals.
The milk consumed with the cereal does provide nutrition. Soda provides nothing substantial.
The cereal also provides nutrition. Cinnamon Toast Crunch contains vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, vitamin D, copper, magnesium, niacin, phosphorus, diabeetus, vitamin B, vitamin B6, zinc, riboflavin, delicious, thiamin, folic acid, potassium, and dietary fiber.
You would only need 13 servings of Cinnamon Toast Crunch to get an entire day's recommended dietary allowance of dietary fiber. That's not even a whole box. Recommended!
You would only need 13 servings of Cinnamon Toast Crunch to get an entire day's recommended dietary allowance of dietary fiber. That's not even a whole box. Recommended!
Dentists would disagree
No doubt they'll all be back in a few months. If Twitter brings in verified users for a fee it's ultimately going to get leveraged for advertising.
I imagine an "only target verified users" option being offered to advertisers with a surcharge associated with it. They're going to get paid from people being verified, and get paid more by companies wanting to advertise to verified people.
I imagine an "only target verified users" option being offered to advertisers with a surcharge associated with it. They're going to get paid from people being verified, and get paid more by companies wanting to advertise to verified people.
Brand safety is massive concern for large brands and they consistently decline cheaper performance to ensure brand safety. Source: I’ve spent $10MM in ad spend the last 2 years for major brands, and constantly set up brand safety settings that are so strict they reduce performance significantly.
Yes, and they're being pretty open about it by calling it a pause. They and the scalp taking outrage class get to strut around feeling victorious and in a few months when it's hip to hate some other target, the advertisers will quietly start buying ads again. Pretty much everyone understands the game now and that it's entirely about signaling and nothing else.
But that wouldn't make sense. How many people are going to pay the $8 a month while also being OK with ads? I can pay $8 to Hulu and get an AD supported video streaming service, since I can't get the content for free legally. Why would i pay that same amount to still see ads while also paying to see tweets that other people have created?
I've got zero stake in this, but what's the point of GM, VW, and others to boycott Twitter? To give their ad spend to Google and Meta instead? That's beyond laughable.
Update: Ok I could get there's a conflict of interest with automotive (and space travel I guess) but come on ...
Update: Ok I could get there's a conflict of interest with automotive (and space travel I guess) but come on ...
You just explained it, imagine if one of your competitors (Tesla) now knows how much you spend on Twitter, its like a strategy game but now they know your advertising budget. Also they want to see the boundaries between Tesla and Twitter, are you funding your competitors by just spending money on Twitter?
There are powerful lobbies threatnibg with blackmail and defamation
Makes perfect sense. As twitter is now a private company at the whims of a crazy bro i think more companies should reevaluate wether they want to use his services and products. He needs to convince users, corporate or private, that this ad platform is worthy.
This whole thing is fascinating to watch.
The reaction seems kind of ridiculous, given that he's not really done anything yet.
As of yet, there's been no high-profile unbannings, or even changes to the ToS, AFAIK. Just a plan to turn the blue checkmark into something that's not an exclusive status symbol.
Yes, redundancies can be brutal for those involved, but they're not exactly uncommon when the economy isn't doing so well, or a company changes hands or is restructured. And so far, the scale of the redundancies seems to be mostly speculation?
As of yet, there's been no high-profile unbannings, or even changes to the ToS, AFAIK. Just a plan to turn the blue checkmark into something that's not an exclusive status symbol.
Yes, redundancies can be brutal for those involved, but they're not exactly uncommon when the economy isn't doing so well, or a company changes hands or is restructured. And so far, the scale of the redundancies seems to be mostly speculation?
Hopefully this will make people reconsider combustion engines in the fight against EVs, but I have my doubts.
I'd love to see a social platform where your followers see what you post for free, but you have to pay for anyone for comments else to see it (that goes for comments too). Advertisers would be treated no different than any other poster. Everyone would get a portion of the money that was paid to show them content. You could set your own threshold for what it cost for someone to show you something.
Auto companies cutting spending is just spite from competition which is understandable.
What’s comical is the gall of General Mills, who has spent decades getting kids (myself included) addicted to sugar with manipulative advertising.
It’s genuinely amazing and saddening how many people want to see Musk fail. We are watching Atlas Shrugged play out.
What’s comical is the gall of General Mills, who has spent decades getting kids (myself included) addicted to sugar with manipulative advertising.
It’s genuinely amazing and saddening how many people want to see Musk fail. We are watching Atlas Shrugged play out.
> It’s genuinely amazing and saddening how many people want to see Musk fail. We are watching Atlas Shrugged play out.
That’s certainly how Musk wants everyone to think about it but isn’t the more parsimonious explanation that humans love watching a good train wreck, and he’s showing every sign of delivering one? The plot in Atlas Shrugged was a fantasy around productive people being held back by society but none of Musk’s problems are anything like that. Instead of being held back by the government, he’s made billions from it at both Tesla and SpaceX. His problems are all self-created: advertisers voluntarily choosing where they see the most benefit to their business seems like something libertarians should wholeheartedly support.
That’s certainly how Musk wants everyone to think about it but isn’t the more parsimonious explanation that humans love watching a good train wreck, and he’s showing every sign of delivering one? The plot in Atlas Shrugged was a fantasy around productive people being held back by society but none of Musk’s problems are anything like that. Instead of being held back by the government, he’s made billions from it at both Tesla and SpaceX. His problems are all self-created: advertisers voluntarily choosing where they see the most benefit to their business seems like something libertarians should wholeheartedly support.
Yeah, social media sites come and go. When one implodes another rises to fill its place. Not a one is special. But right here right now in 2022 I get to watch a thoroughly unpleasant person potentially lose 40 billion dollars in public. I’m sitting back and grabbing my popcorn in much the same way I imagine my ancestors would come out to watch a hanging.
If you don’t want to be ostracized financially, don’t embrace being this flavor of human. Actions have consequences.
It is genuinely amazing and saddening how many people continue to make excuses for Musk’s actions and behavior. If that is what success is, yes, please, fail. No one told Elon to light a substantial amount of his wealth on fire with this effort; his character and emotional health led him here. Wealth amplifies who you already are.
He could’ve just been the cool dude who made sexy electric cars and rockets that land themselves. He might still go back to that after the Twitter experiment, but the reputation will take Herculean efforts to recover.
By no means a Musk hater by the way. Own multiple Teslas (acquired pre shenanigans), took my kid to see the first falcon heavy launch, and used to to drive to the cape all of the time to see earlier F9 launches at all hours. I respect the ambition, just not at the cost of being a decent human being, and I think that’s a fair position to hold: disappointment.
It is genuinely amazing and saddening how many people continue to make excuses for Musk’s actions and behavior. If that is what success is, yes, please, fail. No one told Elon to light a substantial amount of his wealth on fire with this effort; his character and emotional health led him here. Wealth amplifies who you already are.
He could’ve just been the cool dude who made sexy electric cars and rockets that land themselves. He might still go back to that after the Twitter experiment, but the reputation will take Herculean efforts to recover.
By no means a Musk hater by the way. Own multiple Teslas (acquired pre shenanigans), took my kid to see the first falcon heavy launch, and used to to drive to the cape all of the time to see earlier F9 launches at all hours. I respect the ambition, just not at the cost of being a decent human being, and I think that’s a fair position to hold: disappointment.
> I respect the ambition, just not at the cost of being a decent human being, and I think that’s a fair position to hold: disappointment.
This seems to be a very common position. I know Tesla owners who are perfectly satisfied with their cars but somewhat apologetic about being associated with the CEO. You know that the CEOs of GM or Toyota must have views they also disagree with but they aren’t constantly making the news for such stupid reasons.
This seems to be a very common position. I know Tesla owners who are perfectly satisfied with their cars but somewhat apologetic about being associated with the CEO. You know that the CEOs of GM or Toyota must have views they also disagree with but they aren’t constantly making the news for such stupid reasons.
[deleted]
The only reason musk gets so much hate is because he uses twitter without a PR.
Give him a PR team and people would still be going on about him like in 2016.
Give him a PR team and people would still be going on about him like in 2016.
Or it’d be the more normal problems like over-promising FSD. That can still be damaging but it’d stay mostly in the business news whereas stuff like calling someone who rescued a bunch of teenagers in Thailand a pedophile is just begging to be the headline story.
[deleted]
> It’s genuinely amazing and saddening how many people want to see Musk fail.
I think that among Musk's "haters" (I include myself in that group) are a lot of people who at one time or another had faith in the things Musk was saying but then saw him fail to deliver... again, and again, and again. If the average person did this for the better part of decade there would be consequences. However, Musk has been able to skate by on a Tony Stark-like perception of himself and continues to elicit an unreasonably credulous response from his fans and the media.
So I think "wanting to see him fail" is a combination of skepticism - since he has a long track record of over promising and way under delivering - as well as perhaps a desire for Musk to reap some kind of consequences for talking out his ass for so long.
I think that among Musk's "haters" (I include myself in that group) are a lot of people who at one time or another had faith in the things Musk was saying but then saw him fail to deliver... again, and again, and again. If the average person did this for the better part of decade there would be consequences. However, Musk has been able to skate by on a Tony Stark-like perception of himself and continues to elicit an unreasonably credulous response from his fans and the media.
So I think "wanting to see him fail" is a combination of skepticism - since he has a long track record of over promising and way under delivering - as well as perhaps a desire for Musk to reap some kind of consequences for talking out his ass for so long.
"Musk" and "failed to deliver" in one sentence without negative qualifier?
Regardless of what he claimed in those public brainstorming sessions, and what opinions he communicates, business-wise the man has accomplished more than probably any human in history. Without him internet payments would have come later, and we probably wouldn't really have electric cars, vertically landing rockets and saffordable global satellite internet. The nerve to take on any of these fields and build innovative companies on that level boggles the mind.
I mean I might be missing someone. We have many whose life's work was to build one innovative major business. Some built a conglomerates, but usually on existing technologies.
I think people are writing him off a little early with regards to Twitter. Turning it around and making it work according to his will and possibly leveraging it for something even bigger isn't too unlikely.
Regardless of what he claimed in those public brainstorming sessions, and what opinions he communicates, business-wise the man has accomplished more than probably any human in history. Without him internet payments would have come later, and we probably wouldn't really have electric cars, vertically landing rockets and saffordable global satellite internet. The nerve to take on any of these fields and build innovative companies on that level boggles the mind.
I mean I might be missing someone. We have many whose life's work was to build one innovative major business. Some built a conglomerates, but usually on existing technologies.
I think people are writing him off a little early with regards to Twitter. Turning it around and making it work according to his will and possibly leveraging it for something even bigger isn't too unlikely.
That's actually part of why their are so many Musk haters: he rewrites history to make himself appear successful, taking credit from those who actually did the work.
Paypal was based on Thiel's startup, not Musk's. In fact, after Paypal merged with Musk's X.com, X.com shut down all of its pre-merger activities and focused exclusively on scaling Thiel's Paypal. Musk forced his original CEO out and took over the merged company, but was fired by the board months later for gross incompetence, and is a member of the Paypal Mafia solely because of the golden parachute his lawyers negotiated for him. (Note that Thiel and the other members of the Mafia absolutely hate Musk; go through media interviews of these guys and you'll notice how much they avoid talking about him.)
Electric cars were a thing before Musk; hell they actually pre-date ICE vehicles. The issue was that batteries were very expensive; Tesla simply happened to come along when batteries started getting cheap enough to put into cars and artificially low interest rates made it feasible to invest billions in high-risk startups.
Vertical landing rockets were invented by NASA in the 1970s, but they never had the budget to develop those into viable alternatives to the Space Shuttle program, because politicians had a vested interest in the Space Shuttle program and not in reusable rockets. The development of SpaceX's reusable rockets was entirely funded by NASA and the DoD.
Affordable global satellite internet already exists. Iridium is actually cheaper than Starlink, and is close to profitability. Starlink currently runs at a massive deficit and by SpaceX's own admission will not be profitable if Starlink does not receive government internet access funding.
Musk's life's work was not to innovate anything. It was to find innovative things being done by other people and to take all the credit for himself.
Paypal was based on Thiel's startup, not Musk's. In fact, after Paypal merged with Musk's X.com, X.com shut down all of its pre-merger activities and focused exclusively on scaling Thiel's Paypal. Musk forced his original CEO out and took over the merged company, but was fired by the board months later for gross incompetence, and is a member of the Paypal Mafia solely because of the golden parachute his lawyers negotiated for him. (Note that Thiel and the other members of the Mafia absolutely hate Musk; go through media interviews of these guys and you'll notice how much they avoid talking about him.)
Electric cars were a thing before Musk; hell they actually pre-date ICE vehicles. The issue was that batteries were very expensive; Tesla simply happened to come along when batteries started getting cheap enough to put into cars and artificially low interest rates made it feasible to invest billions in high-risk startups.
Vertical landing rockets were invented by NASA in the 1970s, but they never had the budget to develop those into viable alternatives to the Space Shuttle program, because politicians had a vested interest in the Space Shuttle program and not in reusable rockets. The development of SpaceX's reusable rockets was entirely funded by NASA and the DoD.
Affordable global satellite internet already exists. Iridium is actually cheaper than Starlink, and is close to profitability. Starlink currently runs at a massive deficit and by SpaceX's own admission will not be profitable if Starlink does not receive government internet access funding.
Musk's life's work was not to innovate anything. It was to find innovative things being done by other people and to take all the credit for himself.
I mean as far as not delivering musk is in the bottom 0.1% of humans. His companies accomplishments are immense and he’s
Built multiple billion dollar companies. I think most take issue with his ego/politics/demeanor
IMO the same reason people have celebrity-like adoration for Musk is the same reason people have gut antipathy for him: norm destruction. Our society runs on norms more than explicit rules or laws. Musk has made a career out of breaking these norms, some of which have been very positive, but which are quickly veering away from that. These are things that a person might be able to get away with (no effective enforcement against them) but which if everyone engaged in them, it'd be extremely harmful to society.
Norms that matter: Don't call rescue workers pedophiles for no reason. Don't impregnate your employee. Don't put software designated generously as beta in control of vehicles on public roads. Don't boisterously sign legal agreements, harass your business associates and thousands of innocent employees, and then strain the legal system in an attempt to undo your whoopsie. Don't lay people off in such a way designed to circumvent severance requirements. The list goes on and on.
There's not a lot of effective enforcement against these things but it's important that they don't become the norm. So insofar as I'm "cheering for him to fail," it's because I'd prefer that we don't have an entire generation of business leaders thinking this behavior is admirable. The marginal improvements he can make to Twitter nowhere near outbalance the harms he can inflict on our society's norms. Also, frankly, I'd prefer he focused on cars and rockets because we need his attention (and more) on those big problems and he's made great progress so far. The Twitter sidequest is an addiction gone awry.
Norms that matter: Don't call rescue workers pedophiles for no reason. Don't impregnate your employee. Don't put software designated generously as beta in control of vehicles on public roads. Don't boisterously sign legal agreements, harass your business associates and thousands of innocent employees, and then strain the legal system in an attempt to undo your whoopsie. Don't lay people off in such a way designed to circumvent severance requirements. The list goes on and on.
There's not a lot of effective enforcement against these things but it's important that they don't become the norm. So insofar as I'm "cheering for him to fail," it's because I'd prefer that we don't have an entire generation of business leaders thinking this behavior is admirable. The marginal improvements he can make to Twitter nowhere near outbalance the harms he can inflict on our society's norms. Also, frankly, I'd prefer he focused on cars and rockets because we need his attention (and more) on those big problems and he's made great progress so far. The Twitter sidequest is an addiction gone awry.
> It’s genuinely amazing and saddening how many people want to see Musk fail.
Spite is surly not the reason this billion-dollar brands are pulling advertising from the company whose owner is using it to spread conspiracy theories about political violence. These companies have no compass beyond shareholder value. They just see the writing on the wall now that Musk has ownership of Twitter.
Spite is surly not the reason this billion-dollar brands are pulling advertising from the company whose owner is using it to spread conspiracy theories about political violence. These companies have no compass beyond shareholder value. They just see the writing on the wall now that Musk has ownership of Twitter.
> It’s genuinely amazing and saddening how many people want to see Musk fail.
People want to see bad behavior have bad consequences. Anything else would be amazing. And while this is by no means the lowest Musk has gone, it's definitely one of the times he has had most influence over a lot of people.
Musk has in just recent time been peddling some conspiracy theories, made some astonishing remarks re: the status of Crimea in Ukraine and so on. It's more than enough already to make me never want to see him succeed in controlling anything related to media (social or not).
> Auto companies cutting spending is just spite from competition which is understandable.
That could be part of it. But unless there is a clear sign that auto companies do this to a larger extent than other megacorps I'd put it down to just being defensive. Twitter under Musk has controversy and turmoil written all over it, And if I were a large company I'd want no part in it. It's so easy to shift ad money to other places.
I'm guessing advertisers will return once the storm settles. At that point, I also fully expect Musk to have gone full circle, realizing the only way to run Twitter was the old way. Whether it will survive that round trip is the question.
People want to see bad behavior have bad consequences. Anything else would be amazing. And while this is by no means the lowest Musk has gone, it's definitely one of the times he has had most influence over a lot of people.
Musk has in just recent time been peddling some conspiracy theories, made some astonishing remarks re: the status of Crimea in Ukraine and so on. It's more than enough already to make me never want to see him succeed in controlling anything related to media (social or not).
> Auto companies cutting spending is just spite from competition which is understandable.
That could be part of it. But unless there is a clear sign that auto companies do this to a larger extent than other megacorps I'd put it down to just being defensive. Twitter under Musk has controversy and turmoil written all over it, And if I were a large company I'd want no part in it. It's so easy to shift ad money to other places.
I'm guessing advertisers will return once the storm settles. At that point, I also fully expect Musk to have gone full circle, realizing the only way to run Twitter was the old way. Whether it will survive that round trip is the question.
These companies don't personally care about Musk -- they just don't want to be associated with the fallout as he mananges to offend or annoy a significant proportion of people.
I’d also add that Twitter is weird for being far more influential than its user size would suggest. People advertise there because it has a disproportionate impact, and many high-profile users are reconsidering how much content they create for the service for free.
Agreed. I work with a charity that uses Twitter to communicate with the public. They are keeping a close eye on whether it is still the kind of medium they want to be associated with.
> It’s genuinely amazing and saddening how many people want to see Musk fail.
Musk and his various companies have openly sharted on laws, regulations and legal orders and agreements many, many times (e.g. his SEC squabbles which should have led to someone checking over his tweets prior to sending them out, COVID-19 rule ignorance, workplace safety regulations, ...), and he's been a general arsehole way too often as well (the "pedo diver" incident, one of his own kids distancing themselves which led to Musk twittering anti-trans shit, ...).
Of course people want to see that even the richest asshole on the planet is not fully immune from consequences for his actions.
Musk and his various companies have openly sharted on laws, regulations and legal orders and agreements many, many times (e.g. his SEC squabbles which should have led to someone checking over his tweets prior to sending them out, COVID-19 rule ignorance, workplace safety regulations, ...), and he's been a general arsehole way too often as well (the "pedo diver" incident, one of his own kids distancing themselves which led to Musk twittering anti-trans shit, ...).
Of course people want to see that even the richest asshole on the planet is not fully immune from consequences for his actions.
> It’s genuinely amazing and saddening how many people want to see Musk fail. We are watching Atlas Shrugged play out.
When you watch a clown, you expect him to slip on a banana peel. Musk puts himself out there as an utterly unserious buffoon. This is what he wants.
When you watch a clown, you expect him to slip on a banana peel. Musk puts himself out there as an utterly unserious buffoon. This is what he wants.
> What’s comical is the gall of General Mills, who has spent decades getting kids (myself included) addicted to sugar with manipulative advertising.
Nature made everyone addicted to sugar. Of course not everyone is as prone to this as others, but sugar is energy and organisms (we included) need energy.
Manipulative advertising is also a bit redundant. Advertisement is meant to be manipulative, which is maybe more obvious by a pejorative/synonym for advertisement: propaganda.
Nature made everyone addicted to sugar. Of course not everyone is as prone to this as others, but sugar is energy and organisms (we included) need energy.
Manipulative advertising is also a bit redundant. Advertisement is meant to be manipulative, which is maybe more obvious by a pejorative/synonym for advertisement: propaganda.
He is kind of an asshole.
> We are watching Atlas Shrugged play out.
Atlas Shrugged my ass. There has never been a more effective government suckler than Elon Musk. Every business he's running exists entirely due to the largesse of the federal government. Except Twitter of course, and so far it's looking quite possible that he may end up incinerating his $44 billion dollar impulse purchase.
Atlas Shrugged my ass. There has never been a more effective government suckler than Elon Musk. Every business he's running exists entirely due to the largesse of the federal government. Except Twitter of course, and so far it's looking quite possible that he may end up incinerating his $44 billion dollar impulse purchase.
I mean tons of companies "paused" ads when Facebook did something or another, but it was 100% just that ad budgets being cut going into a weak economy anyway.
So we'll see if this is real or just convenient PR spin.
So we'll see if this is real or just convenient PR spin.
Yeah, in the two companies I worked at that did a lot of advertising - Twitter had some of the worst ROAS.
If we are in or do enter a downturn, I wouldn't be surprised if these ads become unprofitable. They'll quickly get turned down.
If we are in or do enter a downturn, I wouldn't be surprised if these ads become unprofitable. They'll quickly get turned down.
So my cereal company is getting involved in politics now?
I'm not Elon Musk fan, but he is pissing off a lot of people and institutions I don't care for.
I'm not Elon Musk fan, but he is pissing off a lot of people and institutions I don't care for.
They are pausing ad spend on Twitter because they don’t want to be involved in politics.
It genuinely surprises me how many Musk defenders don’t get this. I understand the principle his no-moderation policies come from but the reality is that Twitter is going to become (even more of) a political cesspit. No brand is going to want to be associated with it.
Twitter was politically neutral before a few days ago? This seems more like a reaction to the Current Thing, which is "Elon man bad."
They've replaced Emmanual Orangestein with Elonnuel Goldstein.
What was Twitter last week? What was Twitter when they banned a sitting president of the United States?
It's only now political because Elon owns it?
It's only now political because Elon owns it?
You mean a sitting president who flagrantly violated their TOS? If anything it was political that they waited so long to ban him, not that they banned him when they did.
Exactly. Contrary to Thailand for example, the president does not get special privileges from private organsiations.
People who ask for that are beyond the idea of democracy
People who ask for that are beyond the idea of democracy
Your cereal brand cares about profits like all companies so it doing what it thinks is best to not lose those. If being on the new twitter was more profitable in the long run then they would stay.
> So my cereal company is getting involved in politics now?
Then using your logic, Musk (and by extension Tesla, SpaceX) are also getting involved in politics? Why are you upset on the one hand (cereal) and not the other (Musk)?
Then using your logic, Musk (and by extension Tesla, SpaceX) are also getting involved in politics? Why are you upset on the one hand (cereal) and not the other (Musk)?
Well for starters, I don't own a Tesla and don't use SpaceX. So they aren't really on my radar. I do, however, eat cereal.
Why would not wanting to spend your ads on Twitter be political. The place is a brand risk, only Elon wants you to think this is about owning the libs
This is how facists work- they frame anyone’s dissenting speech and actions as politically opposed.
This is how facists work- they frame anyone’s dissenting speech and actions as politically opposed.
> So my cereal company is getting involved in politics now?
Have you been in cryogenic deep sleep the last decade? This is every single Big Corp now. No matter how you stand on these issues, but if subsidising abortion, flying the rainbow flag, enforcing affirmative action and supporting immigration isn't political, then what is?
Have you been in cryogenic deep sleep the last decade? This is every single Big Corp now. No matter how you stand on these issues, but if subsidising abortion, flying the rainbow flag, enforcing affirmative action and supporting immigration isn't political, then what is?
I mean, big corps have been deep into politics since forever. It's called lobbying, and they all do it.
Lobbying is "influencing power for your own advantage". This is the opposite, its submitting to a certain agenda, some of them clearly against their own interests.
Ok, I disagree that it's against their own interests. At the very least, I'm sure the people making these decisions believe it is in their own interests. But that's really beside the point. The point is, big business has always been political. I can't think of any coherent definition of politics that doesn't include "influencing power for your own advantage."
I don’t know what to tell you man. Support for LGB rights, abortion, and immigration are all popular in the US. If you exclude rural baby boomers, a demographic no advertiser cares about (except My Pillow and emergency meal prep companies), all of those things are very popular.
For some reason nowadays there's a huge cohort of haters on HN in every Elon Musk-adjacent post.
As if he was some arch-villain in disguise plotting to destroy them personally.
Whereas in reality he isn't as terrible nor as perfect as what all the millions of critics and boosters suggest.
I'm explicitly writing this out because I believe HN should always be a place of engaging in substantive discussion, and not mindless agitation regarding any topic.
As if he was some arch-villain in disguise plotting to destroy them personally.
Whereas in reality he isn't as terrible nor as perfect as what all the millions of critics and boosters suggest.
I'm explicitly writing this out because I believe HN should always be a place of engaging in substantive discussion, and not mindless agitation regarding any topic.
Yet you yourself provide no substance to the discussion and just formulate some centrist statements without any points adding to the discussion.
I clearly made at least one substantial point addressing at least one topic in my prior comment.
He's just kind of unlikeable (to many) due to the things he says and does. I don't think it's hard to understand.
It's not some immoral thing to dislike a person for their personality.
It's not some immoral thing to dislike a person for their personality.
Thank God for these advertisers. Twitter is very powerful — demagogues can use it to subvert democracy, and repressed peoples can use it to start revolutions. To have this service by controlled by one person — no board and no shareholders to answer to — is to put too much power in the hands of one person. And Musk has proved himself to be unworthy of wielding such power (for example, by tweeting a link to a conspiracy theory on Pelosi). If these advertisers can provide checks and balances on Musk's power, I won't be one to complain about that.
Are you being sarcastic when you present 'board and shareholders' as a 'check and balance' ?
I'm honestly not sure if you are, because the idea that a board and shareholders can be thought as a counterpower is ludicrous to me but it's hard to detect sarcasm in a message
The blue cathedral is offended and retaliating.
What is the blue cathedral in this context ?
JACK: Elitist, East coast, alternative, intellectual, left-winged...
LIZ: Just say Jewish, this is taking forever.
- 30 Rock
LIZ: Just say Jewish, this is taking forever.
- 30 Rock
I think "the powers that be" also works in this context.
Control over global public discourse is the most effective mind control tool in the world. Even moreso when your control is hidden and you maintain plausible deniability. The current ownership won't give this up without a fight.
Control over global public discourse is the most effective mind control tool in the world. Even moreso when your control is hidden and you maintain plausible deniability. The current ownership won't give this up without a fight.
Didn't know Rupert Murdoch owned Twitter.
Thanks y'all for the immediate slander and political replies. Anyways, the strategy is now clearly to burn twitter to the ground and diminish its influence since it isn't controlled anymore.
All because white guys want to tweet the N word
* Audi
* GM
* General Mills
* L'Oreal
* Pfizer
* Volkswagen
You then have Interpublic and WPP telling their clients to pause ads.
People really don't understand the power imbalance. Twitter desperately needs these advertisers but for these brands the ad spend is in low single digits and the possibility of harming their brand just simply isn't worth it.