Some brands were reportedly putting small or nominal amounts into X advertising because executives feared that appearing to boycott the platform could invite public conflict with Elon Musk. That account comes from a Financial Times report published March 31, 2025; it is not a verified list of advertisers, proof of a formal X requirement, or evidence that every large company paid for protection.
What the report actually said
The Financial Times report described marketing executives’ concerns that companies might be seen as boycotting X and draw Musk’s attention. Lou Paskalis, chief executive of marketing consultancy AJL Advisory and a former Bank of America media executive, characterized the perceived pressure this way: “It’s whatever amount is enough to stay off the naughty list,” according to the Nieman Journalism Lab excerpt of the report.
![Marketing Magic: How I produced 7 billion views, 50 million social media followers and $250,000,000 in yearly revenue without paid advertising! ... ... Manuel Suarez [Hardcover] Manuel Suarez](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41DEmJulOkL._SL160_.jpg)
“Naughty list” was Paskalis’s description of the concern, not a documented X policy. The reporting does not establish a minimum spend, nor does it identify a verified roster of brands and their advertising amounts. Treat “small sums” as a reported pattern and motivation, not a universal rule.
Why would a company spend on a platform it has concerns about?
The reported calculation was about competing business risks, rather than a simple judgment that X was either safe or unsafe for every advertiser. Executives were weighing whether the value of reaching audiences on the platform justified the spend, alongside placement and brand-safety concerns and the possibility of public criticism for withdrawing.
#1 Best Overall
Paskalis also told the Financial Times, in the excerpt reproduced by Nieman Journalism Lab: “It’s not because the brand safety risk has gone away. But the far greater risk is that a comment [from Musk] in the press sends your stock price tumbling, and instead of a multimillion-dollar risk you’re facing a multibillion-dollar risk.” This is his assessment of the relative risks; it does not independently demonstrate that a particular Musk comment caused a stock-price decline.
- Commercial performance: Is the platform expected to deliver enough audience reach or advertising value to justify allocating budget there?
- Brand safety and placement: Are the company’s ads likely to appear in contexts it considers suitable?
- Reputational exposure: Could advertising, or a decision to stop advertising, prompt criticism from customers or other stakeholders?
- Public-response risk: Do executives believe being characterized as a boycotter could lead to damaging attention? The report presents this as a concern, not a measured or proven outcome.
What the 2025 ad-revenue forecasts do—and do not—show
On March 31, 2025, EMARKETER forecast that X would generate $2.26 billion in global advertising sales in 2025, up 16.5% year over year, and $1.31 billion in US advertising sales, up 17.5%. These were projections, not final 2025 results or measurements of how much any individual brand spent.
In a May 2, 2025 analysis, EMARKETER described the recovery as complicated and said projected revenue remained below pre-acquisition levels. That finding was also forecast context—not a realized revenue figure or a current 2026 outlook. The forecasts help explain the commercial backdrop, but they cannot establish whether the reported advertisers earned a return on their spending.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How much did the brands spend, and are they still advertising?
The available reporting does not provide verified dollar amounts for named advertisers, and it does not establish current participation rates. It therefore cannot answer how much a particular company spent or whether that company is still advertising on X in 2026. Any precise brand-by-brand figure or present-day claim would need separate, current evidence.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
