Reevaluating the role of X in modern marketing strategies

X, formerly Twitter, is grappling with controversies, prompting marketers to reassess its viability. This article discusses the pros and cons of including X in modern marketing strategies. 

By: Sandra Larsson, Advisor, on November 14, 2024 | Reading time: 3-4 minutes

X (formerly Twitter) has long been recognized as a pivotal digital space for real-time interaction, enabling companies to swiftly disseminate news and connect directly with their audience. However, the medium’s recent entanglement in a series of controversies has prompted marketers to reassess its viability as a marketing channel. This article summarizes the recent events and explores the pros and cons of various involvement strategies on X.

The current state of X: Challenges and persisting interest

X has found itself at the center of multiple controversies that have significantly impacted its standing among marketers. The network has grappled with serious problems, primarily the manipulation of ads to include antisemitic content. These incidents, involving high-profile organizations and public figures, not only breached the microblogging site’s policies but also raised alarming concerns about its ability to prevent such manipulations and effectively manage hate speech. A recent survey highlighted that only 4% of advertisers now consider X “brand safe,” compared to 39% for Google.

The digital space has also proven vulnerable to bot campaigns, where automated accounts have been used to amplify specific messages, raising concerns about their potential to manipulate public opinion.

Furthermore, the network’s owner himself has endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory, which, alongside other erratic behaviors, has further marred X’s reputation.

These issues have led to a significant withdrawal of advertisers, including major corporations like Apple, IBM, Coca-Cola, and Netflix, all seeking to protect their brand integrity and users taking a moral stance. For a marketer, that means not only a question about brand safety and moral considerations but also lower user involvement and reach on the medium. It has also prompted competitors like Meta’s Threads to rapidly gain a substantial user base, showcasing the shifting dynamics in social media preferences.

Recently, The Guardian and Dagens Nyheter expressed concern about the platform’s development under Elon Musk’s ownership, particularly concerning the U.S. presidential election 2024. DN’s editor-in-chief, Peter Wolodarski, announced that the newspaper will no longer publish from its official accounts on X. The Guardian justified its decision by stating that X has become a “toxic media platform” and that the benefits of being on the platform have diminished.

X and its owner are fighting hard to address the reputation issues and battling the severely decreased ad revenue. X has taken legal action against GARM (The Global Alliance for Responsible Media), accusing them of illegal boycotting. X also held a meeting on the topic “brand safety” at their New York office, which attracted 80 companies, including major organizations – this tells us that interest in advertising on the microblogging site still persists.

Why do marketers stay on the platform?

Despite the challenges, marketers still acknowledge the unique advantages that this channel continues to offer. As a medium, X excels in real-time interaction, making it an invaluable tool for companies during live events, product launches, and crisis management. Its hashtag functionality enhances the visibility of campaigns and helps in tapping into global conversations. Moreover, the microblogging site’s diverse user base provides fertile ground for audience involvement across various demographics.

Evaluating Involvement Strategies on X

Given the current climate, companies now need to carefully reevaluate their strategies for involvement on X. Below, we list the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to assist marketers in making informed decisions tailored to their unique situations and objectives.

Complete withdrawal from X

Withdrawing completely from X avoids the challenges and brand safety risks associated with the platform. This strategy allows for the reallocation of resources to potentially more effective channels. However, it also means losing a direct interaction platform with audiences, which can be particularly detrimental in markets where X remains popular. Additionally, it presents challenges in controlling misinformation or addressing false claims about the organization, as you cannot interact on the medium without an account.

Passive presence (account maintenance without active posting)

Maintaining a passive presence by keeping an account active can be beneficial. It protects the company’s name as it prevents others from using the handle and requires minimal resources, keeping options open for future strategic activation. However, being passive on a social media network may convey to consumers that the organization is outdated or disengaged, potentially leading to a loss of customer interaction and involvement opportunities.

Limited involvement (organic only)

Choosing to engage organically allows you to draw benefits from the positive aspects of using X as a marketing channel while mitigating the brand safety risks associated with paid advertising. The limitations of this approach are reduced reach compared to paid strategies and slower growth and engagement rates, which can be critical drawbacks in fast-paced market environments. Also, consider what it means from a brand standpoint to be active on the platform.

Full involvement (paid and organic)

Engaging fully with both paid and organic strategies on X offers the advantage of maximizing reach and visibility, enhancing real-time interaction, and providing immediate feedback on campaigns and products. However, this approach can carry significant risks, including a high potential for brand safety issues and the likelihood of association with inappropriate or harmful content. Moreover, maintaining active and effective campaigns in this channel requires substantial resources and constant vigilance, which can be a considerable strain.

Conclusion

Engaging with X requires balancing potential benefits against brand damage risks and resource allocation. The network’s direct interaction capabilities must be weighed against the associated risks and potential drawbacks. Companies must carefully consider their specific circumstances, audience, and marketing goals when deciding on their X strategy, ensuring alignment with overall objectives and brand values. While some may find the involvement benefits outweigh the risks, others may view the challenges as too significant a threat to their reputation.

Read more about our Social Media Marketing offerings.