They also said "for non-ideological or virtue signaling reasons", but proceeded to find cases where their ad was shown beside supposedly antisemitic content - based on their opinion, with no evidence.
Also has budget of $80M/year but needs AM, designer, analyst, and creative specialist from Twitter to support him.
He says its not for virtue signaling but literally the 2nd point is virtue signaling.*
The only point that really matters as far as ads are concerned is the first one, but without numbers it’s not much to go on.
In other words, it’s not a very useful article for how non-virtue signaling companies will respond.
* Ad purchasers having little tolerance for being placed next to racists posts made by the user’s own subscribers and the user’s own content choices is a recent phenomenon, and is literally the definition of virtue signaling
> Serious brand safety issues. Our organic social and CS teams got dozens of screenshots of our ads next to awful content. Replies to our posts with hardcore antisemitism and adult spam remained up for days even when flagged
Not wanting your advertisements displayed right next to objectionable content is not 'virtue signalling' lol.
"the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."
Thinking that it might be bad for brand reputation to have engagement with your posts to be filled with antisemitism and porn isn't exactly virtue signaling.
> He says it not for virtue signaling but literally the 2nd point is virtue signaling.
I think it means not for virtue signaling [about musk/twitter].
Avoiding brand damage and other “common” virtue signaling (like sticking American flags on things for July 4th, sticking rainbows on things for pride, etc) are just called “marketing”. It’s standard operating procedure for someone looking to make money.
Regardless I think the point of the original post on blind was “I don’t care about musk or twitters acquisition drama, but for other reasons we are cutting twitter ad spend”
I think this is supposed to be in contrast to the ubiquitous posts about “I can’t trust twitter because Elon is a bad man that’s why I’m cutting my ad spend”
It's not virtue signaling to not want your brand displayed next to hateful content. Brand safety isn't just avoiding "things you personally don't like" it's avoiding "things your customers have negative associations with that could transfer to your brand"...
I don't care what political party death threats are directed at, I don't want my ad displayed next to a death threat. It's not a moral objection, it's a business decision.
They would do their best to distance themself from encouraging the threat itself, but if ads next to death threats lead to a lot of views and purchases most advertisers would undoubtedly jump at the opportunity.
Case in point: Any news company. 95% of their content is about objectionable actions taken by objectionable people. But ad money rolls in despite being placed next to crime, rape, murder, racism, war, and yes, even death threats. They’re literally monetizing crime.
Being advertised next to something is not necessarily an endorsement of that thing. They’re orthogonal
Advertisers care DEEPLY about the things that surround their brand when it comes up in an ad.
Your case in point... advertisers regularly try to get news companies to not run certain stories. Advertisers are rarely successful, but it does happen!
There's a big difference between reporting about something (people choosing to read the news, getting ads on the side), and advertising the threats (people see that advert they didn't expect next to your advert they didn't expect).
Your initial assertion doesn't hold either. For example you can advertise through TrafficJunky way cheaper than on social media. Yet most companies don't.
Maybe you don't notice the effects that your brand being next to stuff like porn has because you're not operating at the scale where that sort of thing matters?
You're probably not running national or global ad campaigns.
> * Ad purchasers having little tolerance for being placed next to racists posts made by the users own subscribers and the users own content choices is a recent phenomenon, and is literally the definition of virtue signaling
"Adult" posts means __pornography__.
I don't think pornography is necessarily virtue signaling. We all understand that some brands don't want to associate with it though.
I don't think "Antiemetic" is necessarily political. But if it is to you, then... focus on the other word in that sentence. I've heard that more-and-more pornographic material has been appearing on Twitter recently (even before the Elon takeover), and people / advertisers were feeling more and more uncomfortable about it.
> Ad purchasers having little tolerance for being placed next to racists posts made by the user’s own subscribers and the user’s own content choices is a recent phenomenon
... Eh? Someone should go back in time and tell DoubleClick and Google that they didn't need all those content rules for their ad networks. Traditional web ad platforms have _never_ allowed their ads to be placed amongst "hardcore antisemitism and adult spam".
On the
> user’s own subscribers
point... Have you used Twitter in the last decade? What you see on Twitter isn't who you subscribe to, it is what the vaunted algorithm chooses to foist on you, with a little bit of who you actually subscribe to as a treat.
Your asterisk is in no way a recent phenomenon. Advertisers have directed changes to television shows and magazines to prevent being placed near something with content they worry will impact their brand.
A "Financial Services Company" that can afford to spend a million bucks a month on Twitter ads is probably not selling anything I'd like to be buying. As a user, I'm not exactly clear about why I should feel outraged. I say, please, more of this.
Addendum: HN downvotes are the sweetest tears because you can tell who is crying.
Oh, the ads going away may be fine for end-users, but it may not be so great for the income statement of Twitter or its ability to meet its (now very high) debt service obligations.
Won't necessarily be great for users, either. There'll always be bottom feeders who'll advertise anywhere; typically crypto scams and the dodgier online casinos and so forth.
When I very first learned about Twitter, I honestly thought the entire thing was a joke that was always a month away from revealing itself. That feeling has remained startlingly consistent over the last 16 years. I just expect Jack Dorsey to pop around the corner and be like "Haha you silly gooses, here's our real product that we have actually been working on!"
> As a user, I'm not exactly clear about why I should feel outraged
Why should you? Not everything has to be about outrage.
I think it's interesting to see how a major tech company falls apart when 80+% of staff abruptly leave. Breaking logins for paying customers and ignoring issues they raise seems like a notable issue.
It's always fun trying to translate sentences from corporate types to normal english:
"running a team that deploys about $80M in ad spend/year."
=
"running a team that spends $80M on ads every year"
I get it - it implies that they're not just signing checks, they are engineering sophisticated ad campaigns. That is a relevant detail to set up the story, and changing one word is an efficient way to convey that.
The irony here is that TeamBlind is entertaining to most users (tech ppl with technical background) because it's degenerate and off the cuff. To limit ad spend on Twitter for "ethical" reasons is the most degenerately ironic take I've heard all year!
I thought the irony was that they were fine with Twitter when they shared the platform with Louis Farrakhan, ISIS, and countless child predators, but Elon Musk owns it now and reinstated the account of the former president so that's where they draw the line.
Okay this is just right wing propaganda. Promotion of terrorism, grooming, and bigoted behavior were all against the Twitter TOS before Musk took over, and violations have only increased after Musk laid off the majority of the moderation team - not to mention people posting copyrighted material.
It's propaganda to correctly point out that ISIS, Farakhan and numerous child predators had accounts for years? It's a fact. So how is that propaganda?
Yes, because it had absolutely nothing to do with TFA or the discussion. Farakahn still has a twitter account, before and after Musk took over. The point is, Twitter has a smaller mod team and that is leading to tons of behavior that's making advertisers more hesitant to use it as a platform.
It has everything to do with the article. Anybody who claims the discourse on Twitter is too negative now while having no problem with Farrakhan, ISIS etc over the years can't be taken seriously.
My mind can be changed though. Can you provide some specific examples of this discourse now that rises above the level of the shit that Farrakhan says?
The worst thing Farrakhan has tweeted lately is a prayer defending Kanye, a person who was un-blocked by Musk. If that doesn't make everything crystal clear I don't know what will.
And Hitler had decent paintings, but if you're willing to be associated with him then you get the whole package. Farrakhan has 30 year history of antisemitism but that's ok, certainly not as bad as Elon owning Twitter, right?
Also, I asked for an example of this recent discourse that is worse that the types o comments Farrakhan has made, do you have some examples?
I'm not going to link the anti-semetic things Kanye said here, but you can go to his Twitter page if you're curious. If that's not good enough for you then I guess we don't have anything to discuss.
I read them. Nowhere near as virulent as what Farrakhan has been saying for decades. Again, nobody cared then for some reason. IT's almost like the offensive content isn't really what is driving people crazy, it's the loss of control of their major propaganda platform. Let's call it what it is.
Everything about the post explained that it was not ethical reasons - it was business pure and simple.
Don't be confused about the brand safety stuff, that's a core advertising issue, and not even the biggest one. But it is important, if you are paying to get your brand good advertising, and instead it shows up next to content that negatively impacts the impression of your brand, you won't keep buying that.
I'm surprised all the Elon fans aren't critical of the fact that he fired all the people in the department responsible for taking customer money. 5D chess indeed !
52 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadAlso has budget of $80M/year but needs AM, designer, analyst, and creative specialist from Twitter to support him.
The only point that really matters as far as ads are concerned is the first one, but without numbers it’s not much to go on.
In other words, it’s not a very useful article for how non-virtue signaling companies will respond.
* Ad purchasers having little tolerance for being placed next to racists posts made by the user’s own subscribers and the user’s own content choices is a recent phenomenon, and is literally the definition of virtue signaling
Not wanting your advertisements displayed right next to objectionable content is not 'virtue signalling' lol.
"the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."
Thinking that it might be bad for brand reputation to have engagement with your posts to be filled with antisemitism and porn isn't exactly virtue signaling.
I think it means not for virtue signaling [about musk/twitter].
Avoiding brand damage and other “common” virtue signaling (like sticking American flags on things for July 4th, sticking rainbows on things for pride, etc) are just called “marketing”. It’s standard operating procedure for someone looking to make money.
My political brand image is not important to my product, and could only hurt me.
That said, I am more fortunate in the space I am in (no competitors, clear utility).
(edit: I agree that he may have been referring to virtue signaling about Musk specifically, hard to say.)
I think this is supposed to be in contrast to the ubiquitous posts about “I can’t trust twitter because Elon is a bad man that’s why I’m cutting my ad spend”
I don't care what political party death threats are directed at, I don't want my ad displayed next to a death threat. It's not a moral objection, it's a business decision.
Case in point: Any news company. 95% of their content is about objectionable actions taken by objectionable people. But ad money rolls in despite being placed next to crime, rape, murder, racism, war, and yes, even death threats. They’re literally monetizing crime.
Being advertised next to something is not necessarily an endorsement of that thing. They’re orthogonal
Your case in point... advertisers regularly try to get news companies to not run certain stories. Advertisers are rarely successful, but it does happen!
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787
Advertisers have a lot more say about the morals we have in modern times than you think.
"female presenting nipples"
Your initial assertion doesn't hold either. For example you can advertise through TrafficJunky way cheaper than on social media. Yet most companies don't.
But the assertion was the advertisers don’t want to be next to crime, racism, etc.
I’m just giving a simple example that, largely, it is not true. You can be next to unsavory things and still get tons of ads, if you do it right.
You're probably not running national or global ad campaigns.
"Adult" posts means __pornography__.
I don't think pornography is necessarily virtue signaling. We all understand that some brands don't want to associate with it though.
I don't think "Antiemetic" is necessarily political. But if it is to you, then... focus on the other word in that sentence. I've heard that more-and-more pornographic material has been appearing on Twitter recently (even before the Elon takeover), and people / advertisers were feeling more and more uncomfortable about it.
... Eh? Someone should go back in time and tell DoubleClick and Google that they didn't need all those content rules for their ad networks. Traditional web ad platforms have _never_ allowed their ads to be placed amongst "hardcore antisemitism and adult spam".
On the
> user’s own subscribers
point... Have you used Twitter in the last decade? What you see on Twitter isn't who you subscribe to, it is what the vaunted algorithm chooses to foist on you, with a little bit of who you actually subscribe to as a treat.
Addendum: HN downvotes are the sweetest tears because you can tell who is crying.
When I very first learned about Twitter, I honestly thought the entire thing was a joke that was always a month away from revealing itself. That feeling has remained startlingly consistent over the last 16 years. I just expect Jack Dorsey to pop around the corner and be like "Haha you silly gooses, here's our real product that we have actually been working on!"
Banks and brokerages spend billions on advertising...
For me, this article helped in understanding why advertisers would exit Twitter. I was wondering about that. It delivered.
Why should you? Not everything has to be about outrage.
I think it's interesting to see how a major tech company falls apart when 80+% of staff abruptly leave. Breaking logins for paying customers and ignoring issues they raise seems like a notable issue.
Immediately proceeds to make it about virtue signaling 2 steps below.
My mind can be changed though. Can you provide some specific examples of this discourse now that rises above the level of the shit that Farrakhan says?
Also, I asked for an example of this recent discourse that is worse that the types o comments Farrakhan has made, do you have some examples?
Don't be confused about the brand safety stuff, that's a core advertising issue, and not even the biggest one. But it is important, if you are paying to get your brand good advertising, and instead it shows up next to content that negatively impacts the impression of your brand, you won't keep buying that.
I'm surprised all the Elon fans aren't critical of the fact that he fired all the people in the department responsible for taking customer money. 5D chess indeed !
Did Twitter get rid of a bunch of bots? This is the fakest thing about this post.