Last week, Pavel Durov, the enigmatic founder and CEO of Telegram, was arrested by French authorities who alleged he wasn’t doing enough to block the misuse of his platform for criminal activities, including scams, drug trafficking, organized crime, and the distribution of child abuse material. Say what you will about X, but Telegram seems to be… not brand safe.
The app is widely popular, especially internationally, with over 950 million monthly users, according to the company. Telegram’s privacy features and anti-censorship stance have made it particularly sticky with those who want secure messaging. Telegram also allows 200,000 members in one chat, which is unique compared to other platforms, like WhatsApp. That scale of usership in a single chat also seems to have played a role in the French case (one bad channel with that many participants is a problem).
Not that it matters for this site, but the arrest was – surprise – controversial, fueling debates about the responsibilities of digital platforms in policing user content and cooperating with authorities. Durov supporters like Elon Musk (another surprise!) claim his arrest is an affront to free speech. Critics, however, argue Telegram’s laissez-faire approach to content moderation – in contrast to other platforms more willing to work with governments on illicit activities – has created a haven for bad actors.
Why This Matters:
Interestingly, earlier this year, Durov gave a rare interview to the FT about Telegram’s business model, highlighting advertising as a key and growing piece of its success. He noted that Telegram was testing ads in certain regions, with a minimum spend of €1 million to €10 million per advertiser. Durov also shared that, this year, the company planned to expand the ads business globally and dabble in some form of automation to open up the platform and drive more scale. He mentioned that the company was making “hundreds of millions of dollars” in revenue after introducing ads a few years earlier, though that was coupled with revenue from the company’s subscription business. Still, Durov painted a rosy advertising picture, even saying that a potential IPO was forthcoming.
Telegram’s ads platform has few barriers to entry. Advertisers can run basic contextual campaigns, displaying ads in specific channels. Ads don’t rely on any personal data for targeting, which aligns with Telegram’s focus on privacy and security. Channel creators are incentivized to build their channels with a 50% ad revenue share. Telegram advertising is mostly powered by performance advertisers, who appreciate the easy setup. “All it takes is to type up to 160 characters, add a Telegram link to promote, and specify the channels in which to place your ad,” says Telegram’s ad portal.
Experts React:
Telegram in response to Durov’s arrest says, “It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform.”
Our Take:
How will Durov’s arrest affect the ads business? Possible outcomes could include stricter content moderation requirements, potentially affecting the types of ads allowed on Telegram, and more rigorous vetting for ads and advertisers to ensure compliance and to block scams. Channels could also be banned outright, or at the very least blocked from ad dollars, which could have an effect on existing Telegram campaigns.
Advertiser confidence could also be at risk, but Telegram advertisers are more performance-oriented and likely “don’t care” about brand safety. Still, supporting the proliferation of child abuse material should give any advertiser pause. If you’re trying to find a silver lining, larger brands could view the increased scrutiny as a positive step toward a more regulated platform down the road, which might make them more interested in experimenting once changes are made.
Notably, some publishers have also embraced Telegram as an audience engagement platform. Bloomberg, for example, spoke with Digiday several years ago about how it was using Telegram to support audience growth overseas. Publishers who relied on the platform might be less committed to it given the reputational concerns.
