I deleted Snapchat, despite the consequences
Following Snapchat’s bizarre ‘Would you rather slap Rihanna’ or ‘Punch Chris Brown?’ ad, String Nguyen decided it was finally time to take her personal brand off the app.
I deleted Snapchat, to send a message. Domestic violence is not okay.
Snapchat, a visual messaging app, thought it was funny to promote an ad for a mobile game that asked a series of questions. The ad said, “Would you rather slap Rihanna” or “Punch Chris Brown?”
This is a clear reference to an incident in 2009, when Rihanna’s then-boyfriend, Chris Brown, physically assaulted her before a Grammys party. Brown pled guilty to get out of jail time.
Instead of deleting Snapchat maybe you should try rebooting your brain – it was a third party ad, Snapchat did not “promote it.”
Duncan, this was an ad was served by Snapchat to Snapchat users on behalf of an advertiser. Whether that fits your limited definition of ‘promoting’ it, is largely irrelevant to String’s op-ed.
The same way every other media organisation is accountable for what it publishes – prints, airs or broadcasts etc, Snapchat has to be held accountable for what it distributes.
Nice one, String
Tend to agree with Duncan (less the insult), if you held every media company accountable for the advertising they run you’d have to boycott them all
Also agree with Duncan minus the tone.
Are TV networks responsible for the content inside the programs they air?
Yes. Yes they are.
Would the Sydney Morning Herald run an ad like this?
Of course not.
Creative on Snapchat has to go through an approval process and it’s disgusting this got through.
As an aside, I have noticed a trend in the comments section to particular nastiness directed at female contributors. Mumbrella staff – do you vet comments for personal attacks?
Hi Kate,
We certainly do vet comments for personal attacks and it’s a fine line we have to tread. There’s many that don’t get approved for exactly that reason and I agree that female contributors tend to attract more nastiness, I suspect that’s a broader internet problem.
Regards,
Paul
Which is exactly why I respond using a alias with an indeterminable gender. For the record, I’m male. And I agree there is a noticeable nastiness in mumbrella comments, which seems to reflect the local industry.
Agree Duncan. String seems to believe that blaming and deleting snapchat for allowing some ignorant ad from a gaming app somehow makes her out as an activist. Misguided to say the least..
No, it means she is aligning her personal and business interests with brands who have the same ethics as she does. More of us should follow suit.
Ethics and morals – what revolutionary concepts in the advertising industry.
@Kate Agree entirely. Also your analogy with the SMH is spot on, they have human beings in place who face consequences if they make poor editorial choices.
Also @Time Two, yes TV stations are to some extent responsible for the content they show, there are channels to complain to and ad standards and restrictions – and cases where material is potentially objectionable there is an onus on a tv station being able to justify why something aired in the context of the program. Imagine they ran a slap Tracey/ punch Dean poll during Married at First Sight for example – they wouldn’t, because there is some level of accountability.
Perhaps many commentators here are too young to appreciate what editorial veto means and why it is/was important. Perhaps they are blind to why ‘new-media’ on the world wide web acting like it’s the wild wild west can be damaging. Perhaps they feel taking doesn’t mean anything anymore, it’s just virtue signalling and the cats too long out of the bag…all the myriad benefits of an algorithm serving a suggested cat video outweighs antiquated sentiments of morality and accountability.
The comments here amount to hand-washing and are along the same lines as the Youtube, Facebook and Snapchat ‘we’re just a platform’ mantra that’s offered as an excuse to baulk moral responsibility whilst blithely banking billions.
Preach Kate <3
Here’s the critical thinking piece that comes to mind in this discussion for me.
When people use a social media app to keep in touch with friends and family, they don’t have the same level of responsibility as an influencer who deliberately shares content to build an audience. SnapChat lives or dies by advertising revenue, and when String posts her stories, (and when anyone does), those stories bring eyeballs to ads. No stories, no ads, no revenue. It’s basic business for SnapChat.
When an influencer like String teaches a course designed to bring new people to the platform, she’s endorsing it and saying, “Hey, this is a good website, you should come use it.”
That’s bringing eyeballs to SnapChat’s ads.
Influencers need to think about whether the actual influencing they are doing is a force for good or for destruction. The YouTuber who encourages self harm is clearly a destructive influencer. I view String as a positive influencer, and since she’s bringing people to SnapChat, she wants them to have a positive experience.
Seeing jokes that remind her and others of how someone in the past abused her, and encouraging abuse is destructive, not positive. It’s not who she is, and it’s not who she wants people to think she is.
And yes, SnapChat is 100% responsible for approving this advertisement. If you think they’re not, you’re not holding them to a high enough standard.
So, when someone like Rihanna or String deletes an app publicly, which encourages others to do the same, they are saying, “You are showing ads to my people that are destructive, that’s not how I want my people treated, so I’m taking them to someone else’s website and that other website gets to show them ads, you don’t.”
THAT is what is happening here.
I appreciate those who get it, and to those who missed the point… You need more ?
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
As a plant-based vegan I am offended you would insinuate that eating more chicken is relevant to people getting the point
Like everywhere, especially Facebook, but now even on Mumbrella, the comments section seems to have become a venue to attack complete strangers, often women as noted, when they take a stand or voice a strong opinion which might not fit the norm. No wonder people of either gender hesitate to say what they really think and feel; I know I have become far more selective. Who wants the nastiness?
And we wonder why we live in the world we do?
I agree poor call. But obviously Snapchat severely underestimated the power of Rihanna and Instagram. Not the moral outrage of its own followers.