Arguably, around FTX, it was better. EA and FTX both had strong brands for a while. And there were worlds in which the risk of failure was low.
I think it’s generally quite tough to get this aspect right though. I believe that traditionally, charities are reluctant to get their brands associated with large companies, due to the risks/downsides. We don’t often see partnerships between companies and charities (or say, highly-ideological groups) - I think that one reason why is that it’s rarely in the interests of both parties.
Typically companies want to tie their brands to very top charities, if anyone. But now EA has a reputational challenge, so I’d expect that few companies/orgs want to touch “EA” as a thing.
Arguably influencers are a often a safer option—note that EA groups like GiveWell and 80k are already doing partnerships with influencers. As in, there’s a decent variety of smart YouTube channels and podcasts that hold advertisements for 80k/GiveWell. I feel pretty good about much of this.
Arguably influencers are crafted in large part to be safe bets. As in, they’re very incentivized to not go crazy, and they have limited risks to worry about (given they represent very small operations).
Arguably influencers are a often a safer option—note that EA groups like GiveWell and 80k are already doing partnerships with influencers. As in, there’s a decent variety of smart YouTube channels and podcasts that hold advertisements for 80k/GiveWell. I feel pretty good about much of this.
This feels different to me. In most cases, there is a cultural understanding of the advertiser-ad seller relationship that limits the reputational risk. (I have not seen the “partnerships” in question, but assume there is money flowing in one direction and promotional consideration in the other.) To be sure, activists will demand for companies to pull their ads from a certain TV show when it does something offensive, to stop sponsoring a certain sports team, or so on. However, I don’t think consumers generally hold prior ad spend against a brand when it promptly cuts the relationship upon learning of the counterparty’s new and problematic conduct.
In contrast, people will perceive something like FTX/EA or Anthropic/EA as a deeper relationship rather than a mostly transactional relationship involving the exchange of money for eyeballs. Deeper relationships can have a sense of authenticity that increases the value of the partnership—the partners aren’t just in it for business reasons—but that depth probably increases the counterparty risks to each partner.
Arguably, around FTX, it was better. EA and FTX both had strong brands for a while. And there were worlds in which the risk of failure was low.
I think it’s generally quite tough to get this aspect right though. I believe that traditionally, charities are reluctant to get their brands associated with large companies, due to the risks/downsides. We don’t often see partnerships between companies and charities (or say, highly-ideological groups) - I think that one reason why is that it’s rarely in the interests of both parties.
Typically companies want to tie their brands to very top charities, if anyone. But now EA has a reputational challenge, so I’d expect that few companies/orgs want to touch “EA” as a thing.
Arguably influencers are a often a safer option—note that EA groups like GiveWell and 80k are already doing partnerships with influencers. As in, there’s a decent variety of smart YouTube channels and podcasts that hold advertisements for 80k/GiveWell. I feel pretty good about much of this.
Arguably influencers are crafted in large part to be safe bets. As in, they’re very incentivized to not go crazy, and they have limited risks to worry about (given they represent very small operations).
This feels different to me. In most cases, there is a cultural understanding of the advertiser-ad seller relationship that limits the reputational risk. (I have not seen the “partnerships” in question, but assume there is money flowing in one direction and promotional consideration in the other.) To be sure, activists will demand for companies to pull their ads from a certain TV show when it does something offensive, to stop sponsoring a certain sports team, or so on. However, I don’t think consumers generally hold prior ad spend against a brand when it promptly cuts the relationship upon learning of the counterparty’s new and problematic conduct.
In contrast, people will perceive something like FTX/EA or Anthropic/EA as a deeper relationship rather than a mostly transactional relationship involving the exchange of money for eyeballs. Deeper relationships can have a sense of authenticity that increases the value of the partnership—the partners aren’t just in it for business reasons—but that depth probably increases the counterparty risks to each partner.