The Drum polled more than 100 marketers to get their initial reaction to yesterday’s statement from X chief executive Linda Yaccarino claiming the groups systematically – and illegally – sought to boycott the platform as part of a broader effort to force X’s hand into suppressing right-leaning voices on the platform.
The industry’s response was a wall of ridicule, a consensus that the platform owned by a man who only last year told advertisers to “go fuck yourself” had made its bed and now had to sleep in it. X’s growing irrelevance in the eyes of the world’s top marketers owed more to its own actions than a shadowy cabal of media execs, many argued.
The lawsuit follows a July report from the Republican-led US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary claimed that Garm and the WFA colluded “to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets and other content deemed disfavored by Garm and its members … eliminating a variety of content and viewpoints available to consumers.”
WFA and Garm members have not responded so far. In a prepared statement to congress last month, Herrish Patel, president of Unilever USA, said: “Unilever, and Unilever alone, controls our advertising spending. No platform has a right to our advertising dollar.”
However it came about, what is not in question is the souring of relations between advertisers and X since Musk’s takeover in 2022. Kantar’s Media Reactions report has charted a sizeable fall in trust and observed innovation at X among marketers in that time.
A second table shows media investment plans. At this juncture, advertisers consider other platforms more exciting. This trend pre-dates Musk but accelerated during his tenure.
What is the motive for the X lawsuit?
It’s unclear what the play is from X. As many observers have pointed out, suing advertisers is unlikely to increase their willingness to advertise.
Far from improving relations, tensions between X and advertisers – already simmering since Musk told boycotting brands to “go fuck yourself” on stage in New York – look likely to escalate.
“I hope they stop. Don’t advertise,” Musk told interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin at the Dealbook Summit in November. “If somebody is going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Go fuck yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is.”
It was clear. But then, an olive branch.
A few days out from Cannes Lions, Musk was added to the program for a head-turning – some might say head-scratching – interview with Mark Read, boss of advertising giant WPP. In front of an audience of advertising professionals, there was no repeat of his explosive remarks from November. Instead, Musk cut a more diplomatic figure and his willingness to diffuse tensions extended off stage, where he agreed to a private meeting of marketers in the company of WPP competitor Stagwell.
Progress seemed to be being made, and on July 1 X’s Safety account said it was “excited to announce that X has reinstated our relationship with the @wfamarketers Global Alliance for Responsible Media” and “proud to be part of the GARM community!”
Just over a month on, Musk has now resumed the war – his language – of words, posting on X: “We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war.”
In another missive, he said, “I strongly encourage any company who has been systematically boycotted by advertisers to file a lawsuit. There may also be criminal liability via the RICO Act.” US prosecutors use the RICO Act to crack down on racketeering, most effectively against gangs and cartels.
Brand safety v free speech
Brand safety is one of the cornerstones of the GARM project. It lists its “brand safety floor” – that is “content not appropriate for any advertising support” – as ranging from adult content to crime, terrorism, hate speech, and irresponsible social commentary that could “incite greater conflict.”
It’s unclear what Musk’s stance on brand safety is. As is well documented, what he says changes depending on whether he is trying to muster subscribers on X or schmooze the world’s biggest ad networks. When interviewed by Mark Read at Cannes, he said: “Advertisers have a right to appear next to content that they find compatible with their brands. That’s totally cool. But what is not cool is insisting that there can be no content that they disagree with on the platform.”
But distinguishing between content that is merely disagreeable from that which is irresponsible is where X and advertisers seem to have struggled to find common ground. When reinstating the account of Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist notorious for falsely claiming the fatal 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting was “staged,” Musk said he “vehemently” disagreed with Jones’s statements about Sandy Hook, but added, “but are we a platform that believes in freedom of speech or are we not?” He acknowledged the move would be “bad for X financially,” but “principles matter more than money.”
The principles of free speech absolutism cost X income. But he knew that’d happen. What’s the issue then?
Adland shrugs off the lawsuit and waves away X
Posting on X, David Wilding, former director of planning at Twitter UK, shared Yaccarino’s video with the message: “Genuinely, it’s hard to know whether to ignore nonsense like this, laugh at it, feel embarrassed for everyone involved or be worried by how it’s trying to whip up yet more division. Absolutely desperate stuff.”
The Drum vox popped top marketers to see how the case would shape the media landscape. You can still add your opinion here. From more than 100 responses, there was an overwhelming consensus that the video was a PR stunt more than a good-faith court case.
Alex Wilson, senior strategist at Pitch, said: “How is this going to attract new advertisers to the platform? If I was considering starting advertising on Twitter, I’m pretty sure this would make me think twice.”
Entropy’s Alex Tait, former a senior Unilever marketer and an executive committee member at UK advertiser trade body Isba, said: “This is a PR move … but an ego-driven one rather than a logical one. It just draws more attention to the problem. As if that wasn’t evident enough to UK advertisers with the headlines and unrest over the last week.”
Erez Levin, head of product, at Good-Loop, was measured, but still couldn’t fathom the legal escalation: “Garm should collaborate with the industry to create the standards (principles, taxonomy, tech requirements, etc.), but if there was evidence that they actively tried to influence advertisers on how they should set their buying/blocking strategies so as to intentionally block certain platforms, I would find that quite concerning and a dangerous overreach. Even if that were the case, I think it’d be a stretch to put this into legit censorship/discrimination lawsuit territory.”
Jo Bromilow, social and digital consultant, asked: “So X is suing brands for ‘censoring’ content – brands who presumably don’t have any censorship functionality on X beyond the ability to delete ads to erase comments and mute accounts, aka the same function as pretty much any user has (or used to have) – on X. And all because X won’t [moderate itself]? I’d love to be in the room where the judge laughs that one out.”
It’s worth mentioning that X’s previous case against the Center for Countering Digital Hate was, according to the judge who threw it out, intended “to punish CCDH for publications that criticized X Corp… and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.” It’s a finding Garm’s lawyers should be pouring over today. CCDH was conducting studies into the rise of hate speech on the platform.
Tim Pritchard, executive director, head of content and responsible media at MG OMD, added: “Platform accused of sparking culture wars sparks culture war against advertisers who decline to advertise on it. Bizarre.”
Finally, Carla Gontier, strategy director at Point Iconic, says, “What does X think it’s going to do? Bully Unilever into advertising with them?”
Maybe that’s exactly what the world’s richest man thought. More as it develops. More about the case here.
