Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I told my team to pause our $750K/month Twitter ads budget last week

teamblind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: I told my team to pause our $750K/month Twitter ads budget last week

#21

Post by rsynnott »

mlyle wrote: post #13
gorkish wrote: post #10

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.

Re: I told my team to pause our $750K/month Twitter ads budget last week

#22

Post by gorkish »

mlyle wrote: post #13
gorkish wrote: post #10

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.

'And nothing of value was lost.' - The Critic

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!"

Re: I told my team to pause our $750K/month Twitter ads budget last week

#23

Post by randyrand »

skyyler wrote: post #17
randyrand wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a business owner, I advertise what my product can do, never once my personal beliefs. 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.)

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…

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

Re: I told my team to pause our $750K/month Twitter ads budget last week

#25

Post by skyyler »

randyrand wrote: post #23
skyyler wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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!

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"

Re: I told my team to pause our $750K/month Twitter ads budget last week

#26

Post by rezistik »

randyrand wrote: post #7

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 subscr…

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.

Re: I told my team to pause our $750K/month Twitter ads budget last week

#28

Post by viraptor »

randyrand wrote: post #23
skyyler wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: I told my team to pause our $750K/month Twitter ads budget last week

#30

Post by randyrand »

viraptor wrote: post #28
randyrand wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

I agree there is a difference.

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.

Post reply on HN