The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I've seen the activists basically suggested the advertisers ask for reassurances about the basic level of safety etc that you assume would be continuing (if just because it's legally required/required to avoid lawsuits), given Musk's previous contradictory remarks.

Most of the major cancellations didn't start until Musk himself was on a call according to what I read, and that was because he didn't have any answers/'reassurances for the advertisers so the "you don't know how the new owners will react" doesn't really cut it when the new owners in question are in on the calls, it's one of those things where you'd expect someone spending a lot of money on something would have some clue as to what they were going to do, especially in regards to how the company they've just bought makes it's money.
As it turns out the advertisers were right to worry, as it is it looks like Musk isn't going to be able to comply with even basic privacy and safety laws given how heavily he's gutted the workforce (especially in those areas as they're not coding...), and how he actively ignored risk assessments.

For example every time one of the TV channels in the UK has been taken over the advertisers haven't had this sort of panic, because the new owners normally make it clear what their plans are before they close the deal, same with newspapers, because the new owners are normally aware enough of how the companies they are buying to make sure their customers know what's going on.
 
dowie said:
But that was in part the activists and tbh.. the activist groups knew full well those questions were unable to be answered.

Essentially how can *any* employee of some company facing a takeover provide assurances or guarantees re: what a new owner may or may not choose to do.
Click to expand...

I can't decide if you're selling these AcTiViStS as masterminds or some plebs saying the bleeding obvious.

The advertisers were getting fresh information from activists and it just happened that the activists were correct? What are these advertisers doing if they had to be informed by activists about the facts of the matter.
 
Hotwired said:
I can't decide if you're selling these AcTiViStS as masterminds or some plebs saying the bleeding obvious.

The advertisers were getting fresh information from activists and it just happened that the activists were correct? What are these advertisers doing if they had to be informed by activists about the facts of the matter.
Click to expand...
The issue is, he lent into the blaming of the activists pretty hard, and he's not one to back down and admit mistake. This was at the same time as dowie also spreading the tweet from Elon about the made up CT and Nancy Pelosi partner. Dowie was sharing that. And dowie was sharing when Elon was trolling AOC. These weren't to point out the bad behaviour from Elon, but the opposite. He took joy.

You also only have to look at the situation with the jan6th coup to see an example of him leaving heavily into something and then unable to get himself out of that incorrect position.

The way he speaks about activists is as though they were blocking streets telling companies "we won't shop with you if deal with Elon!", when in fact, it's nothing like that.

The only evidence we have is that advertisers were already cautious and pulled out because of Elon and Elon alone. They came to the same conclusion that the activists also happen to have, the conclusion we also have come to. Perhaps we are next in the list of those to blame for elon/twitters failings.
 
Thekwango said:
i don't follow, how's it mocking by just using capitals randomly. looks a bit 'special' (i don't mean you :p !)

edit: cheers for the reply all the same :)
Click to expand...
AFAIK, it originated from this meme (though not the actual words used here) ...

It's a perfect way to sum up the nonsense some come out with..

032.jpg
 
Last edited:
Might as well just blame critical thinking. How dare these people come to the conclusion that a company that sacks it's board and 50% of employees might not be able to provide the same level of service it did before
 
arknor said:
I'm sure that dopey twit would let his employees belittle him in public and try to stir up trouble too


no one ever got sacked for that right
Click to expand...

His work is being called out on Twitter by Musk. The guy had every right to stand up for his work. He's got to get another job and its no good going to another company and when they ask what he did at Twitter he says he did the system Musk was slagging off. This way he gets out with his head held high and makes Musk look like a bit of a fool.
 
dowie said:
But that was in part the activists and tbh.. the activist groups knew full well those questions were unable to be answered.

Essentially how can *any* employee of some company facing a takeover provide assurances or guarantees re: what a new owner may or may not choose to do.
Click to expand...

So Musk couldn't say that when he took over the company he wouldn't lay off any staff from the safety and compliance departments? How hard would it of been for Twitter to ask Musk for these assurances and those to be passed on to the advertisers? He clearly refused to give such assurances and they probably sensibly decided to wait and see what happened. He then proved their worst fears to be correct. This is all on Elon.
 
Hotwired said:
I can't decide if you're selling these AcTiViStS as masterminds or some plebs saying the bleeding obvious.
Click to expand...

I'm not selling them as anything, I'm just pointing out that they're part if this.

Colonel_Klinck said:
So Musk couldn't say that when he took over the company he wouldn't lay off any staff from the safety and compliance departments?
Click to expand...

Bad to do that before he's even taken over, whatever he says isn't going to satisfy the activist mobs hounding the advertisers, on a more professional level though he's not going to make hard promises re: what should/shouldn't be cut until he's got in and looked at the details.

What he can do is emphasise that he'd not turning it into a GAB/Parler type company and he could do with toning things down a bit on his own Twitter timeline.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
I'm not selling them as anything, I'm just pointing out that they're part if this.



Bad to do that before he's even taken over, whatever he says isn't going to satisfy the activist mobs hounding the advertisers, on a more professional level though he's not going to make hard promises re: what should/shouldn't be cut until he's got in and looked at the details.

What he can do is emphasise that he'd not turning it into a GAB/Parler type company and he could do with toning things down a bit on his own Twitter timeline.
Click to expand...
AFAIK you learn about compliance in the company as part of the due diligence and you should know enough that you can at least say to the likes of advertisers "We shall continue to follow all the legal obligations", and at least be able to say roughly what sort of changes you're looking at in the short term.
What you should in theory never do, when you take over a company that relies on advertising is go into meetings with the advertisers and say "I have no idea idea what we're doing, or how it will affect the people you want to sell adverts to", as the one thing advertisers care about is their brand image and how it looks to their target audience, followed closely by "does this company appeal to the people I'm trying to sell to". This isn't genius level stuff, this is really basic advertising/marketing of the sort your old fashioned local paper going back to the start of the printing presses understood better than Musk seems to, which is quite funny.
 
dowie said:
Bad to do that before he's even taken over, whatever he says isn't going to satisfy the activist mobs hounding the advertisers, on a more professional level though he's not going to make hard promises re: what should/shouldn't be cut until he's got in and looked at the details.

What he can do is emphasise that he'd not turning it into a GAB/Parler type company and he could do with toning things down a bit on his own Twitter timeline.
Click to expand...

Better than giving them nothing and then having no advertising money coming in. He was spending $44b on a social media platform and its like he never bothered to educate himself on what was required from a legal and regulatory stand point or what advertisers would require to keep spending money with Twitter. Lying to them and saying what they wanted to hear would have been better than giving them nothing. He could have then backtracked after taking over if he needed to. Though as we've seen he actually doubled down and fired everyone these companies wanted assurances he wouldn't fire.

You really are obsessed with this activist line aren't you. Just easier to blame them rather than the person who is ultimately responsible for this monumental **** up. And its not like the advertisers don't know their industry and what they do and don't want to risk their products placed next to.
 
Werewolf said:
AFAIK you learn about compliance in the company as part of the due diligence and you should know enough that you can at least say to the likes of advertisers "We shall continue to follow all the legal obligations", and at least be able to say roughly what sort of changes you're looking at in the short term.
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty obvious but that wasn't really the issue here.

mattx4 said:
Yes all those furious mobs everywhere, looking at a couple of current Twitter advertisers HQs in NYC right now and it's a sea of green and purple haired androgynous they thems
Click to expand...

I think you've misread/missed the point completely there.

Colonel_Klinck said:
Better than giving them nothing and then having no advertising money coming in.
Click to expand...

He didn't though...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom