I really don't think companies care what their ads appear alongside. They care about a Twitter user posting an outrage tweet with a screenshot of an ad for a Burger appearing next to the N word. As if we aren't mature enough yet to separate ad space and user generated content.
>I really don't think companies care what their ads appear alongside. They care about a Twitter user posting an outrage tweet with a screenshot of an ad for a Burger appearing next to the N word.
I don't understand what distinction you are making here? Aren't those the same things?
Companies do care what their ads appear alongside, because of the outrage tweets and because, en masse, people / the media aren't mature enough to separate ad space and user-generated content.
No a very loud, very vocal, minority of users that have an extreme authoritarian world view and will create the appearance of wide scale social outrage where there is none will scare marketers..
Of course if they had any real data on the impact of their ads they probally will realize that none of the ads are effective anyway. I have never once saw a twitter ad for a large national fast food place, or a car company and said "hey I need to go buy from them"
Now marketing for lesser known things, things I may not have even known existed well that is effective. But a Burger king add no....
>I have never once saw a twitter ad for a large national fast food place, or a car company and said "hey I need to go buy from them"
Almost no one thinks advertising works on them, but that comes from a misunderstanding of what ads are trying to accomplish. Mercedes doesn't expect you to see a Twitter ad then go out and buy a $60k car. They advertise to establish their brand so that when you do decide to buy a car, you have a perception of Mercedes that is at least partially built through the years of advertisements you have seen from them.
Pray tell, before the internet how many effective boycotts were there in media, are you suggesting this never existed?
The vocal minority has always had the largest impact in all history, that's just how humans work. And even sometimes the vocal minority is correct and the moderate masses say "Oh, yea, you're right megacorp does suck and should probably change".
Simply put there are a number of relatively high view sites that don't have what we would consider reputable advertisers because those advertisers don't agree with the message of the site.
That is simply not true.... the reality is the vocal minority can only effect change is the structures of power support their cause.
This is why people are sooo upset with the management change at twitter, and why they are going after the advertisers now while they still have at least symbolically control over the structures of power.
For at least 20 years now the far left authoritarians have had total control over the media, and the large internet platforms, this wind is starting to shift to the other direction and we are seeing the inevitable attempt to tear down the system before "the others" gain control over it
>For at least 20 years now the far left authoritarians have had total control over the media
I try not to cuss much on HN, but what the fuck are you talking about? If you think Fox News, one of the organizations with the largest audience is far left, you're out of your mind. If you think MSNBC or CBS were anywhere close to 'far left', you are again, out of your mind. Under no definition are those far left.
I think you have a confused idea that a 'open free market' system is building itself, where in reality a bunch of far right fascists are attempting a powergrab.
One slightly right authoritarian news source does not a rule make... I bet you think "republican" means right.... I am a firm believer of the unipary theory of politics
Republicans are no better than democrats. One wants to tell you what to do with your life (including your bedroom) but leave you with your money and guns, the other wants to take your money and guns but will allow you to do pretty much any thing you want (including victimize violently and take an property of others it seems)
Neither are good, both are very much authoritarian
> If you think MSNBC or CBS were anywhere close to 'far left',
If we are cussing.... What the fuck are you talking about... MSNBC not far left? What the hell do you consider far left then... MSNBC is the leftist of left.... Hell At this point they are probably more left than the Young Turks
Ground News marks them as left as well [1]. NPR is "leans left" [2] and Reuters is "Center" [3]
For every Fox news, there are 5++ Left media companies, so yes Fox nows has a large audience because it is consolidated and not spread out between MSNBC, CNN, New Times, Washington Post, and the 100's of other left and left leaning outlets.
Especially because Twitter design makes it hard to separate them. There's a small text "promoted tweet" but that's it. No background, border anything to help telling them apart.
> I really don't think companies care what their ads appear alongside.
It's always funny to see people on HN confidently assert absolute horseshit based on no experience.
As someone who's worked in ad-supported publishing, they absolutely do. A lot of time and energy goes into trying to ensure ads never appear alongside content that the purchaser doesn't want, and failure usually results in running ads for free, at a minimum.
