hesitant return of x
Apple is back on X (formerly Twitter)… or at least advertising again, after over a year of silence. Post Musk acquisition, X has been fraught with controversy (much of it at the hands of Musk himself), leaving big brands running for the metaphorical hills.
Twitter was once one of the most reliable places to spend an ad dollar (maybe not the most cost-efficient, but it had its value). Twitter was once a place for breaking news, viral moments, and in-real-time conversation around some of the biggest events in the world. It was a space for mono-culture to happen and for us all to discuss. Meaning, Brands would pay to be part of the conversation and to create a little conversation themselves. Twitter was the ideal place to do that.
But almost immediately after Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the vibe changed bigly—indiscriminate mass layoffs, a seemingly unnecessary rebrand, problematic messaging coming directly from Musk… all of it was a PR nightmare. And brand reacted in kind. Starting with slowly pulling back spends to see what would happen. And then the inevitable happened, Twitter became X and X became bot broken. Over a handful of months, without consistent moderation and regulation (as all those folks were fired), X turned into a mess. The algorithm no longer seemed to work, non-human accounts were everywhere, and the content being pushed to the top of everyone’s feeds was often no longer of interest. X was a far cry from what Twitter once was.
So what was initially a slow pull back became an outright desertion of the platform, Brands spent them money elsewhere (X ad revenue dropped from $4.5B in 2022 to $2B in 2024 with 26% of advertisers planning to continue reducing spend in 2025).
Then Musk sued them. And the industry kinda went crazy (understandably). Because I didn’t really understand what the legal issue was initially, I’ll quickly summarize—X filed a lawsuit alleging that Brands (including Unilever, Mars, Nestlé, Lego, Pinterest, Shell), conspired through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) to orchestrate an “illegal” boycott, violating antitrust laws by collectively withholding advertising funds (this, I guess, is the illegal part). X says it’s unfair to the consumer for competing advertisers (brands) with market power to come together and dictate brand safety standards because it “shortcuts the competitive process.” Look, I’m no lawyer, but media choice based on objective platform insecurity isn’t conspiratorial, it’s responsible (from a brand safety and financial perspective). I thought it had to be more complicated than that, but doesn’t seem so. X seems to be trying to use the courts to force (or guilt) brands to spend money on their platform.
And it seems to be working, at least a little. Brands are starting to return as the advertising industry is trying get its bearings (post discontinuation of GARM). To incentive more brands to come on back, X is touting some beta advertising improvements (pre-fill with Grok and analyze campaign with Grok), obviously both are using GrokAI. These new features sound cool, making ad development easier and faster and giving more insight into ad performance and optimization.
I’m skeptical and skittish. And if it were my dollar (or our client’s dollar), it’s getting spent elsewhere. Here are my reasons…
The bully tactic isn’t cute. Why would you want to partner with a company that has essentially forced or guilted you into the partnership? Partnerships are based on trust and mutual-benefit and this feels strong-armed against our will, hostile and one-sided
The platform itself doesn’t seem to be any better than it was (bots galore, unmoderated content, etc). There were legitimate reasons why Brands left and media orgs recommended against it. It breaks down, is largely unregulated, rife with harmful or unseemly content and creators, suppresses real news and constructive conversation (the whole point of Twitter), and still (as of today) not super efficient
Musk has become volatile and unpredictable as a person. As his personal stock continues to fall, his affiliated company stocks also fall and therefore brands associated with those companies or him are getting some of that stink on themselves. Sure, Musk has a good amount of fans, but for the general audience, like him or hate him, most audiences are at least dubious.
Musk lies a lot about the advancements his companies are making to get people (and the stock market) excited (think Cybertruck Bulletproof Glass Fail, Full Self-Driving Teslas by 2018, Robotaxis by 2020, human missions to Mars by 2024, Hyperloop, Neuralink human trials, Optimus “coming soon”). So, I’m wary about these AI-powered advertising features
Something feels off with Musk and DOGE and X AI and X Money and all of it. There are a lot of unanswered questions and uncomfort with how all of that is connected and who is ultimately benefiting from his connection to the White House and his efforts with DOGE.
But some advertisers are heading back (again, either because they feel forced, they want to, or surprise new entry, because they think it may buy them some favor with the Trump administration). Forrester just released their recommendations on a return to X advertising, for those interested—Lean into non-binding advertising commitments, explore principal media solutions for upfront deals, and require X to meet media performance thresholds.
Need help navigating the X complexity or just want to gossip about Musk, contact us here.
