(Twitter / @RafaelShimunov)

It's been a little less than a week since Elon Musk decided anyone could get a blue checkmark for a mere $8, kicking off a wave of pranksters imitating actual notable accounts to oftentimes hilarious ends.

Arguably the most humorous and certainly consequential of these impersonations came from one Twitter user imitating pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, best known for manufacturing insulin, Prozac and the diabetes treatments Trulicity and Humalog.

Last Thursday, the prankster spent $8 to tweet, as Eli Lilly, "We are excited to announce insulin is free now." The company's stock plummeted the next day.

Despite reactions and sentiments on social media, it's unclear if the company's stock fell as a direct result of the fake tweet, but there is a strong correlation suggesting that's the case.

What's more clear is the tweet set off widespread panic in the Eli Lilly offices, according to a report from the Washington Post. The phony tweet stayed up for hours while employees scrambled to get in touch with anyone at Twitter (no small feat considering Musk slashed a huge chunk of Twitter's staff days before).

In an attempt to mitigate the damage, the actual Eli Lilly Twitter account had to clarify that no, it is not making insulin free.

Unfortunately for Eli Lilly, the damage had apparently been done and began compounding as more fake Twitter users paid $8 to troll and coincidentally damage the brand.

There are rumors that the fiasco caused Eli Lilly to pull its advertising on Twitter, and while that's unconfirmed, it's clear that Musk's verification debacle and his overall tenure as site owner so far have scared off many potential advertisers. According to a memo reported on by The Verge, Omnicom Media Group, which represents Apple, Pepsi and McDonald's, among others, has recommended pausing all advertising on Twitter due to "potential serious implications."

"[There is] evidence that the risk to our clients’ brand safety has risen sharply to a level most would find unacceptable," Omnicom wrote. "We recommend pausing activity on Twitter in the short term until the platform can prove it has reintroduced safeguards to an acceptable level and has regained control of its environment."

This would obviously be very bad for Twitter, which has never quite been a premier destination for online advertisers. To avoid going bankrupt, as Musk himself warned was possible, it would need advertisers to invest dollars into Twitter. Letting ironic memers incidentally poison a brand for merely $8 is likely not a way to earn brands' trust.

Speaking to The Washington Post, former Eli Lilly communications director Amy Connor said, "For $8, they’re potentially losing out on millions of dollars in ad revenue."


Share Pin


Comments 12 total

big thonk

Good, let it burn

0

Matsuo_kun

If your business model depends on overcharging people for the medicine they need to survive, you deserve to lose every penny.

18

smolbirb

well put my dude. also it's very telling that just the notion of a company doing a good thing for people so they don't need to pay so much money for live saving medicine is enough to topple investments to the company, then it doesn't paint a pretty picture for the type of people that make those investments.

1

A Concerned Rifleman

I really do wonder if this is a ploy to irreparably damage the influence social media has on both corporations and the masses at large. If Twitter doesn't have the reputation of being the fully verified face of the internet, then it no longer has any power.

2

Rynjin

Have people still not come to terms with the fact that wackadoo public figures like Elon and Trump don't "play 5d chess", they're just fucking wackadoos?

It's wild to me that I see theories like this. "Oh yeah, he's just PRETENDING to be retarded, just like all those other times he did stupid shit and showed his ass in front of the whole world. You'll see one day."

14

A Concerned Rifleman

Well, if I was in a position to try and destroy Twitter's public image from the top down, first thing I'd do is gut all the old guard and then attack the credibility of verified accounts, much like what's happening here. Sure, it's likely ignorance of the system, yet there's also no evidence to suggest it isn't malicious compliance.

0

Misspelled Tiger

Yes you would do that, but you are also not the guy who spent like 50 billion dollars on a website, what would he win from running it to the ground?

2

Nox Lucis

Corporations putting themselves out there on social media was a colossal mistake from day one.

17
pinterest