[throwuwu]

> However, the real damage had already been done. By Friday morning, Lilly stock had dropped by more than 5% from the day before.

Bad reporting right here. If you look at their stock chart this is far from an unusual movement. In just the last six months they’ve had several drops of 5% and at least one 10% drop. This is more than just bending the meaning of “damage”, long term investors won’t even notice and day traders will see this as the opportunity it is.

[object-a]

Companies everywhere are looking for safe way to reduce costs. The 5% drop was likely caused by unrelated market conditions, but the impersonation tweet 1) gives an alternative, more palatable explanation for the drop, and 2) provides cover for a CMO or exec to cut their Twitter spend.

[idunno246]

but this is how all stock reporting works, and its pretty useless. they look at every big move, find some weak correlation, and pump out an article. and then if it generates enough clicks the regular newsrooms copy it. ive even seen 'why XX is losing big', and 'why XX is going up' on the same day from the same publisher. basically no stock news is reliable, it all might as well be AI written

[kmlx]

from the same article:

> By Friday morning, Lilly stock had dropped by more than 5% from the day before. The Twitter stunt pulled down the stock price of other diabetes drugmakers, including Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Lilly’s stock has yet to recover and, on Monday morning, remained down more than 4% over the past five days.

the funniest part is when you actually follow that stock, you know why it's down, but then you read someone's twitter and they think the stock's down due some campaign or tweet :)

[dorkwood]

I don't follow the stock. What's the real reason it's down?

[fragmede]

> Eli Lilly is down 5% because the market for their most profitable drug, a $125k/yr mAb IL-17 inhibitor, fell 5%. This is why Novartis, their major competitor with Cosentyx, is also down the same amount

> Not everything is about Twitter!

https://twitter.com/quantian1/status/1591149510168039426

[dorkwood]

So I suppose they're pulling Twitter ad spend for other reasons? I guess this whole fiasco is still damaging to their brand.

[latency-guy2]

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

Ads may have gone down for a number of factors, may also include the fact that Twitter is not really in a place that is good for advertising due to enormous amounts of hostile users

The "damaging tweet" in question was gone long before the stock would've been in a reasonable timeframe to "react" to it.