11–20 of 53 posts
so?
The article covers this. Quite well in fact. A public company where the owner had said “Tesla does not advertise or pay for endorsements” had said they were going to start doing that and this is following up on that. These sorts of things are generally note worthy for public companies. “Instead [of advertising], we use that money to make the product great.” That they feel the need to start advertising might mean the…
A company maturing and doing what every other company is doing is not however interesting. The only reason it is a story is because it is an Elon company.
Personally what I find strange is how people perceive Twitter comments as somehow a contract with the public. People say lots of things, the smart ones are able to change their minds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon has previously stated that he doesn't believe in advertising, "Tesla doesn't advertise". I assume that's the reason why it's newsworthy.
There's also the obvious conflict of interest. How does that get resolved?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the obvious conflict of interest. How does that get resolved?
Maybe compare the spend to other channels? If it's significant difference then it's a problem? If all online channels are 200k and Twitter is one of 12 well, NBD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the obvious conflict of interest. How does that get resolved?
Is this a moral or legal code that is being broken somehow? Because he owns both companies it is somehow immoral to do business between them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the obvious conflict of interest. How does that get resolved?
Is this a moral or legal code that is being broken somehow? Because he owns both companies it is somehow immoral to do business between them?
Twitter is Musk’s private plaything.
Tesla using Twitter services could be a conflict of interest because Musk is CEO of both and could be using his position at Tesla to funnel public shareholder money into Twitter, aka his pocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the obvious conflict of interest. How does that get resolved?
Is this a moral or legal code that is being broken somehow? Because he owns both companies it is somehow immoral to do business between them?
Theoretically it is a way to siphon funds from one company to the other if he forced one of his companies to take a raw deal from the other. If both sides got a fair deal, it’s probably not much to worry about though.