Hacker News Reader

> the NRA is trying to get in on your ad spots and that's not something we can really prevent

It's their company and they can decline to take ads if they would serve the company interest. This guy put the ad division's interest ahead of the company and hurt Snapchat's reputation in the process.

Also his phrasing was "we are talking with the NRA" whereas it would probably have been more explicitly "the NRA has approached us" if they were merely reacting. And again the reaction could simply be "no".

Why is it against the company interest? Because the ad division could literally target every political story the news division puts out as a target for competitive ads, thus forcing content partners to pay up lest they create a platform for their opponents. Thus most would pull out of the stories (as Everytown did) and ultimately decline to cooperate with Snapchat news at all. Sounds like this guy was sabotaging the story out of spite.

> This guy put the ad division's interest ahead of the company and hurt Snapchat's reputation in the process.

I already noted below that I believe this to be the most likely scenario, except it's also in Snapchat's short-term interest, which is why he probably got away with it, at least until now.

That said, the quotes are fairly sparse, and possibly out of context, so I'm hesitant to attribute too much intent to how they are presented in this article.

Any ethical publisher will go out of their way to ensure total separation between editorial (or content creation in the case of social publishers like Snapchat) and advertising. The advertising division typically isn't even allowed to know what kind of content is being run, and the content creators aren't allowed to know what kind of ads are being run.

The practice is often metaphorically referred to as "church and state".

Um, I can perhaps understand how this is the ethical path, but is it really all that common? Google AdSense is explicitly designed to run ads based on the content, and Facebook ad campaigns are precisely targeted to the subject matter. Furthermore, I would honestly prefer to see ads that are relevant to things I would be interested in, if only to have ads served in English, much less coordinated with my hobbies!

Were I the NRA, I would definitely pay a lot more, have better conversion rates, and have happier ad viewers if I could target ads at Snapchat users who talk about guns.

Publisher as in newspaper.

I think the problem here is that Snapchat manages both content and the ads.

That's not how it works.

The ad department isn't supposed to influence how things are covered, but they very commonly know what's coming up precisely for this reason, to find advertisers who want to run adjacent ads.

So that part is normal. But sabatoging the subject of editorial with ad content is definitely not normal, and this ad rep's behavior would be totally out of line at any traditional media outlet for that reason.

That is assuming snapchat is a media company. It's much as a media company as Facebook and Google are.

If they can increase their IPO value with ad sales, they'll be doing so. 40% market penetration for youngsters is solid.

Ok, let me run with that proposition:

1. Snapchat tries to advise Everytown that ad slots are open and the NRA is likely to capture some of them

2. Everytown can't afford to buy up all the slots at the quoted price

(So far, I think both Everytown and Snapchat are still ok here. No harm done.)

3. Snapchat representative, Saliterman, ends the running email conversation with an email saying this: "To be clear, the story has the potential to be bought by any advertiser, including the NRA, which will enable the advertiser to run three 10-sec video ads within the story."

(At this point, if I were in Everytown's shoes, I would now fully believe Snapchat was acting against my interests. They're not even trying to work with me any more.)

Why didn't Everytown call Snapchat's bluff? Run the campaign, not buy the ad slots, let Snapchat do what they may.

They could have screen-grabbed the resulting campaign and used it to generate _massive_ publicity.

Snapchat would have had huge egg on their face.

I can think of Everytown not wanting to make a spectacle of the families who had suffered such loss. But with advance notice maybe they could have gone to the families and asked politely? It seems likely some would have agreed to let this happen and then fight the NRA on the outcome.

(If I were the NRA, as well, I would be _furious_ at Snapchat for ill-using my ad spend in this way.)

But it's all hypothetical, apparently.

That's a good question. Given that Everytown refused to comment now, to me that either points to them valuing their relationship with Snapchat over the perceived benefit from speaking out, or this not being a very accurate portrayal of the events, and they know enough to know that it's not clear that Snapchat was in the wrong and they don't want to be embroiled in the circus that would result.

Everytown did not refuse to comment; they did not respond to multiple requests for comment. There is a huge difference between the two.

Several years ago, I became embroiled in a local controversy. A journalist reached out to me via Facebook messages. As she was not one of my friends, the message went into the abyss. When the story hit her publication it contained the same "Greg Hluska did not respond to a request for comment."

I'm not sure Snapchat would have egg on its face in the scenario you propose.

Maybe there shouldn't be ad space in these types of campaigns, but if they have do have ad slots, anyone can buy them, and I can totally see the NRA doing that.

"anyone can buy them"

That doesn't make any sense. The only reason "anyone" can buy the ads is that Snapchat is letting them.

Not letting certain people buy them would likely result in some interesting run ins with regulators.

There's regulations for selling ads in the US? This is news to me.

I'm almost positive there are regulations of some sort for ads on over-the-air (broadcast) networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, The CW), as their are specific rules applies for their use of public frequencies. I have no idea exactly how that applies to advertising for broadcast networks. I doubt it affects Snapchat in any way.

Only in regards to political candidates, who must be given reasonable commercial access; otherwise, nets are free to refuse to sell ad space to other entities, including political groups (e.g., CBS v DNC).

Try being a huge platform and performing viewpoint discrimination against popular viewpoints, and see what happens :)

Legally? Absolutely nothing. Hence why I question your regulations.

I think that's probably bullshit. Snapchat can restrict the ads they show as much as they want, as long as they're not discriminating against any protected classes of people.

They have a whole page covering the limitations and what types of things aren't allowed: https://www.snap.com/en-US/ad-policies/

Are dudes open carry dudes in camo gear not a protected class? :-)

Yea, I probably would have leaned toward calling the bluff. Organizations like Everytown use the NRA as a boogeyman in enough of their campaigns that it's almost assured that they'd get a ton of earned media out of this.

C'mon, this isn't a completely user-driven process here. Everytown was engaged with the editorial division. Snapchat can clearly control what ads appear where. The ad division has taken something that the editorial division was doing, and engaged in a bit of light blackmail.

This conversation is the email equivalent of "Hey, this is a really nice shop you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it. I'm not saying that anything is going to happen to it, but if you pay me some money, I'll do what I can to ensure nothing happens". It's just missing the pinstripe suit and the accent.

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter that Snapchat's internal divisions are at odds. 'Snapchat' was proactively working with a client and had organised a fee waiver, and then 'Snapchat' demanded blood money. Internal politics are Snapchat's problem, not their clients'. Letting them off the hook on this one merely gives them leeway for their broken internal promises.

This is all independent of the actual moral issues. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, but I'd be just as disgusted if Snapchat had organised to do an editorial with a Christian group, then "what a nice shop"'d them saying 'a hostile atheist group could buy ads'.

> The ad division has taken something that the editorial division was doing, and engaged in a bit of light blackmail.

Sure, that's definitely how it was presented. I'm just saying that we've been given a story, and very little to back it up. I'm not sure where these emails are they are referring to, and if it's possible to corroborate the story, but I think it's worth noting how little sources were cited, and how we got snippets of sentences, not even a single full email. Neither Snapchat nor Everytown are on record in the article either. Do I believe there's some truth to the story? Yes, and my other comments go into detail on that, but I don't think we should be immediately believing everything presented here without corroboration of some sort, just because it fits our current worldview.

I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world. It beggars belief that the editorial staff have absolutely no way of controlling advertising on the things that they run. If their advertising department really does have such brutal control, then Snapchat deserves to get a bit of a grubby reputation over it.

I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference.

If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.

> I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world.

I don't think that's a good characterization of my position.

> I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference.

And quotes have never been presented out of context before? All I'm saying is that in a story where both sides have not released any sort of statement clarifying the situation or their position, and there are just emails to go by, I would feel more comfortable if I was able to see the full email when presented with the scenario in question, rather than quotes taken out of the email and presented in the narrative of the article.

> If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.

That's not the only option though. It could very well be a fairly ambiguous chain of emails, and rational people might disagree on how to interpret them. I don't like having that chance denied me, nor being told how to interpret the situation through limited releases of information.

Edit: See https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/leaked-emails-put-spotligh... for Snapchat's statement. It's along the lines of what I figured it would be in my first comment, but that's an obvious way to reply whether true or not, and as I noted, at this point it's all in the hands of Pr departments.

>Sure, that's definitely how it was presented.

It's just an implication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE

I've seen that clip before, but only recently started binge watching the series. I'm eagerly awaiting that episode. :)

> as the NRA is trying to get in on your ad spots and that's not something we can really prevent.

Eh, surely snapchat can prevent it?

I mean division and policy wise. I'm sure most media organizations vet certain ads during certain broadcasts to prevent issues like this, but I also think that's something they may have learned the hard way. That there's a separation between divisions and one is prevented from interfering with the other in certain ways that are too rigid isn't super hard for me to believe, but neither is someone playing up that rigidity to their own benefit.

Personally, I think the most likely scenario is a little of both. Policies existed, but management would obviously have stepped in if they were alerted, but someone used the policies for personal gain within the company by quoting them and figured they could fall back on them if called out on it by management. If that's the case, the bad PR this may result in may mean that protection is moot. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Saliterman's actions may have been poorly thought out, and traded a small short-term company (and personal) gain for a much greater longer-term risk (which we might be seeing now).

Of course they can. Major TV ad networks are highly selective [1]. Why would it be any different for Snapchat?

[1] http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/i-have-a-great-comm...

OK, but why should they? Prioritising one customer over another isn't good business sense, you're likely to lose the less loved customer.

In this particular case, you don't have a choice. If you run an NRA ad in Everytown's campaign, Everytown is the less-loved customer.

Why is that? Is Everytown's message so shoddy that it can't hold its own against a ten second NRA ad?

Basically, yes.

Why do you say that?

Numbers have been crunched and conclusions have been drawn.

> Basically, yes.

Maybe you should visit their site: http://everytown.org/who-we-are/

It makes no difference one way or the other. The idea is that customer A doesn't want their campaign paired with ads from customer B. I don't care whether they're right or wrong in feeling that way -- they clearly do feel that way. So if you do it anyway, you are absolutely making a clear choice that you favor customer B.

That's my only point. There's no way to abstain and keep the goodwill of everyone.

Because you're dealing with sensitive subject matter. Many news sites switch off or minimise advertising on controversial stories. There's no reason Snapchat can't do the same.

And surely they could just make a call to not run ads against a community/non-profit story?

Is it not unlike Microsoft donating product as sponsorship? (e.g., $100k non-profit sponsorship turns out to be in-kind provision of MS Office licenses.) That's often viewed critically by many on HN.

To be fair, the NRA is a non-profit and does have a significant interest in gun safety. Their approach to the problem is different, but every bit as valid as a gun control group. It would actually be disingenuous to not allow the NRA a seat at the table.

Running an ad from Glock during the event -- now that would problably be a bit ridiculous.

I challenge this.

NRA has an interest in everyone being able to have guns. Politically they "have to" align to gun safety, because who doesn't like "safety"?

They're not a group that has an interest in "safety above all", because that wouldn't include guns.

Their priorities are:

1) Guns.

2) Safety, as long as it doesn't infringe on 1).

> Politically they "have to" align to gun safety, because who doesn't like "safety"

NRA membership is large enough that they also conform to similar values as the general public.

As such, they also want weapons to be as safe as possible, while still remaining effective weapons.

An anti-gun member of the public doesn't want guns to be 'weapons', they want them to be 'hobby tools' which would allow you to compromise effectiveness to an extreme just to get safety.

To me the anti-gun lobby is disingenuous by framing gun ownership as a "hobby". Why in the world would there be a constitutional amendment about a hobby? This is like writing a constitution where the 2nd line talks about the rights to own basketballs.

The question the rest of the world asks is why a country would unquestionably abide to a 200 year old piece of paper, whereas the rest of the worlds countries are old enough to understand that things become obsolete.

But I guess it's the same with religion, and that's global.