In this op-ed, Paul Clifford, adviser at Six O’Clock Advisory, dives into the alleged sinking ship that is X and why it is becoming a “bit off” for corporates.
A recurring conversation at our firm is whether X (formerly Twitter) remains a credible channel for businesses and their leaders. Spoiler: it’s looked for some time and continues to be, largely, a ‘no’.
The Guardian recently jumped ship, ceasing publication of its stories on X. Simultaneously, Bluesky—a direct competitor of X – has been picking up steam. But the strongest case yet against X for corporates comes courtesy of Arla Foods UK and a misinformation maelstrom it’d likely wishes it avoided.
Two weeks ago, Arla Foods UK announced a partnership with Tesco, Aldi, and Morrisons to trial Bovaer, a harmless feed additive that can reduce methane emissions from cows by up to 27%. On paper, this should have been a sustainability and innovation win for all involved. What’s not to love?
Arla shared the announcement via a media release on its website, and a post to its 10,000 followers on X. That post, at the time of writing, has amassed over six million views and more than 13,000 comments, with misinformation taking centre stage. Bovaer was quickly linked to cancer, male infertility and Bill Gates, among other equally ridiculous claims.
Calls for boycotts ensued, complete with dramatic videos of people discarding milk and butter—perfect fodder for those prone to sensationalism. While the actual impact of these echo-chamber boycotts remains unsubstantiated, the reputational damage to a brand like Arla’s is meaningful.
The backlash was significant enough to warrant coverage by The Times and the BBC, which sought to debunk the myths around Bovaer. Arla itself scrambled to issue a statement addressing the mistruths.
This raises the question for any corporates continuing to use X as communication channel: is it worth the gamble? The platform’s ability to amplify unverified claims and whip up outrage poses a serious risk—one that’s increasingly hard to justify.
Every brand should understand its audience and, ideally, seek to meet them where they are. But on X, the ‘audience’ is often infiltrated by bad actors and pseudonyms with a penchant for conspiracy theories.
While one could argue the announcement had risks due to the continued erosion of trust in food safety, it’s difficult to predict every potential reaction from a vocal, and highly irrational, minority.
Instead, brands might be better off sidestepping the platform altogether, avoiding an environment where facts are hard to find.
Arla’s track record on X shows a feed with relatively minimal engagement before this debacle—a handful of comments, a thousand or so views on a post. So, why risk it?
Every brand should evaluate X on a case-by-case basis, but the question is simple: What value does it offer you and your audience? If the answer is anything but it being a vital engagement channel, then perhaps it’s time to follow the Guardian’s lead and move on to greener (read, more rational) pastures.
