As soon as the head of political sales found out about the editorial he stated:
> We are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story.
Later in the article it says that the NRA advertised on Snapchat in 2015, have they since? Or was it that now we will contacting the NRA to tell them it's a good idea to advertise during your editorial.
Seeing the comments it looks like the majority doesn't see a problem with this because the NRA is free to do advertising. To me it's just bad business to be featuring a good cause as a so-called partner and then extorting them like this. It certainly also seems like that would be a negative experience for the viewers and the partner.
In the end Snapchat lost both an editorial partner with a group that resonates with their target demographics and any potential advertising revenue from the event.
> We are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story.
Later in the article it says that the NRA advertised on Snapchat in 2015, have they since? Or was it that now we will contacting the NRA to tell them it's a good idea to advertise during your editorial.
Seeing the comments it looks like the majority doesn't see a problem with this because the NRA is free to do advertising. To me it's just bad business to be featuring a good cause as a so-called partner and then extorting them like this. It certainly also seems like that would be a negative experience for the viewers and the partner.
In the end Snapchat lost both an editorial partner with a group that resonates with their target demographics and any potential advertising revenue from the event.