Dear Advertisers,
Theres no question these are challenging times. Navigating the choppy political waters is fraught with dangers rife with dire consequences. This is why, quietly, some companies dropped DEI programs to stay off the administration’s radar.
In marketing, too, staying above the fray is tough. The last thing any advertiser needs is political pressure to influence marketing programs.
Yet that is exactly what Musk is doing to advertisers and we must be honest about calling it out.
When Musk had decided to buy Twitter but got cold feet, he used the dominance of trolls as a reason to back out of the deal. That could have been the last honest thing Musk said about Twitter ever since.
Flash forward, when Musk did take over X (formerly known as Twitter), advertisers left en masse mostly because the platform had become a magnet for all sorts of wacko’s and trolls. The user experience became awful due to all the changes Musk had implemented centered on crippling the critical safety teams that protected users and advertisers. In no time at all, online harassment exploded and ads could appeared adjacent to brand unsafe content. Running on X (formerly known as Twitter) was not worth the brand safety risk and advertisers pulled back from Twitter. According to Emarketer, the platform generated about $2 billion in global ad revenue in 2024… well below the $4.51 billion generated in 2021, before Musk’s takeover.
Musk did not take kindly to advertisers’ “no vote.” He thrashed about with accusations of “coordinated boycott” and proceeded to sue the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a brand safety initiative of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). The lawsuit accused GARM and its members of orchestrating a boycott that cost X billions in advertising revenue. This suit shut down GARM and one would think that was the end of that.
It wasn’t the end.
It didn’t stop Musk and his revenge tour continued. In February 2025, Musk expanded his suit to include major advertisers like Lego, Nestlé, Tyson Foods, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Pinterest and Shell International.
He meant to rattle and strong-arm advertisers into coming back.
It kinda of worked as some advertisers started slinking back, allocating small amounts of budget to X (formerly known as Twitter). “It’s whatever amount is enough to stay off the naughty list,” said Lou Paskalis, CEO of marketing consultancy AJL Advisory. “The far greater risk is that a comment [from Musk] in the press sends your stock price tumbling,” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/UL/pressreleases/31643497/why-big-brands-are-quietly-returning-to-x/.
Advertisers know the platform did not change. In fact, Musk encourages trolls to amp up audience numbers and engagement.
Advertisers know there are increased brand safety risks since Musk significantly reduced all content curation systems an policies.
Advertisers know that the product is not better with bad actors dominating the platform.
We all know that the only reason for the advertiser turnaround on X (formerly known as Twitter) is about politics triggered by Musk’s ascendency in this administration.
Therein lies a far greater risk – the danger of brands acquiescing to Musk.
At some point this administration will be gone.
At some point, Musk will not be so close to power.
But at that point, advertisers will have created a dangerous precedent that is harmful to brands.
Musk is acting like the Mafia and advertisers are playing the role of the mark who pay for protection. Brands who succumb to the pressure will have hurt themselves and the rest of the advertising community in deeply damaging ways.
1) Rewarding platforms that use legal pressure as a mechanism to force budget allocation is a dangerous precedent. NO ONE should be successful at this tactic. It only encourages other platforms to act in similarly unethical ways.
2) By paying the “ransom,” NO brand cannot push for a better and safer ad platform. Why bother making real changes when simple and cheaper bullying will work.
3) Customers have long memories. Since the media is the message in the digital age, while some people might support running on X (formerly known as Twitter), far more will not. In the long term, this makes your brand MORE vulnerable not stronger.
Sometimes political winds blow fierce and sometimes they are mild. When storms kickup, it is best to reinforce the perimeter and wait for the storm to pass.
Run on X (formerly known as Twitter) or don’t but it should be a decision based on business realities and conditions – not on political terms. That means we all lose.
