Twitter wants to make advertising a blood oath
Start advertising, you're risking outlash if you stop.
Recently, a group of advertisers stopped advertising on Twitter. Whether this is because the platform owner was outwardly antisemitic, or the platform was placing ads next to antisemitic content1, there are a plethora of reasons for advertisers to pause advertising.
Backlash invites more backlash, and inevitably, pausing advertising on a platform causes outcry from Elon and others.
This recent set of comments won't trigger any repercussions for any of the companies involved: the set of names is too large for any consistent action, and most have their customer base spread across the political spectrum (in such a way that their customers are entrenched).
What this does show is the risk of starting ad spends on Twitter. Advertising on Twitter risks your content being featured next to unsavoury content. Stopping advertising risks your brand becoming a potential target for retaliatory action.
This didn't happen with YouTube
YouTube has undergone multiple advertiser boycotts2, from many of the same names that have targeted Twitter. Unlike Twitter, ad boycotts on YouTube disproportionately impact the sites' users, given that they are reliant on advertising revenue for their incomes.
Despite this, I cannot recall any concerted action to attack the advertisers by the userbase for pulling their ads. The ire was directed towards the people breaking the news: in one case, the WSJ, and another, a "YouTuber" called Matt Watson. I'm not saying that is brilliant, but ultimately, external reporters on a platform have a different relationship than advertisers.
Certainly, no executive at YouTube made any incendiary comments targeting the people that left their platform. They worked at resolving those concerns behind closed doors, and advertisers have all but returned. Granted, the way in which they galvanised them back did bring harm to users: the demonetization system is extremely flawed.3 But ultimately, looking at an advertiser perspective, it sure is a lot less risky, even without the platform making changes.
Cultifying your platform brings yet another risk
In Twitter's verification echo chamber, I talked about how the alignment of Blue with Elon will cause the service to only have massive uptake with his audience, and how it will taint the brand identity of the blue checkmark. Since I wrote that, the effect has only amplified.
By tying advertising to cultural alignment with Elon, anyone willing to not look in lockstep will be scared away. And by even dipping your toes in the advertising pool, you risk outrage when you do start advertising, and backlash when you stop.
The only way to win, is to not play.
2023-11-30
I published this article before Elon made his appearance at The New York Times’ Dealbook Summit, whereupon he told advertisters to “go fuck yourself”, accussed them of blackmail, and directly addressed Disney CEO Bob Iger (as pointed earlier in the article, Twitter is not the first platform Disney has pulled advertising from, due to safety concerns).
And due to these comments, we’ve seen a resurgence of the boycott demands, albeit from the similar, Musk fan club audience.
2023-12-07
In a move that should surprise no one, Elon has amplified his attack on Disney. In retrospect, Disney as a target makes perfect sense, given its proximity to the current culture war.
2023-12-19
In what was even unexpected from me, Musk has decided to exact revenge on Disney, and Disney only, by removing their application from Tesla vehicles, as per an Electrek report.
Which is absolutely wild, not least because one of the marquee features of their latest update was Apple Podcasts, another company who dropped advertising on Twitter as a result of this latest fiasco.
I’m referring to the Media Matters reporting. As Musk endorses antisemitic conspiracy theory, X has been placing ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content | Media Matters for America.