Kraken’s ad appeared on Tottenham’s starting lineup graphic. The account, with 8.74 million followers, posted it and only got 1.1 million views.
I broke down the engagement metrics.
5,761 likes, 541 reposts, 698 quote-tweets, and 486 replies—engagement rate is under 0.6% of the view count. Football accounts get pushed hard by the algorithm; high views don’t necessarily mean the people who saw it were truly interested in the content—most just stumbled across it while scrolling. The number of quote-tweets is even higher than reposts, suggesting many people were complaining in the comments or playing along with jokes, not actively resharing the post because they approved of the sponsor.
On pricing, it’s even more straightforward: on September 14, when BTC was still around 78,900, the post went out and BTC then fell to about 76,900; the next day it dropped further to 75,600. In the same period, ETH fell from 2,533 to 2,398. The market was already in an overall risk-off mood, and this sponsored ad didn’t change much.
The real value of this kind of brand exposure is putting the exchange’s name in front of ordinary football fans who don’t consume crypto content. That action can matter for customer acquisition—but whether it actually brings new users depends on downstream conversion data such as search volume, registrations, and funded users. You can’t prove that directly from views alone.
Interpretations like “crypto is going mainstream” and “this is just a normal sports billboard ad” can both be true at the same time—there’s no conflict. But the explanation that’s useful for judging short-term price is the latter. Brand exposure affects the customer acquisition funnel, not the coin price. These two things aren’t interchangeable.
#Web3
I broke down the engagement metrics.
5,761 likes, 541 reposts, 698 quote-tweets, and 486 replies—engagement rate is under 0.6% of the view count. Football accounts get pushed hard by the algorithm; high views don’t necessarily mean the people who saw it were truly interested in the content—most just stumbled across it while scrolling. The number of quote-tweets is even higher than reposts, suggesting many people were complaining in the comments or playing along with jokes, not actively resharing the post because they approved of the sponsor.
On pricing, it’s even more straightforward: on September 14, when BTC was still around 78,900, the post went out and BTC then fell to about 76,900; the next day it dropped further to 75,600. In the same period, ETH fell from 2,533 to 2,398. The market was already in an overall risk-off mood, and this sponsored ad didn’t change much.
The real value of this kind of brand exposure is putting the exchange’s name in front of ordinary football fans who don’t consume crypto content. That action can matter for customer acquisition—but whether it actually brings new users depends on downstream conversion data such as search volume, registrations, and funded users. You can’t prove that directly from views alone.
Interpretations like “crypto is going mainstream” and “this is just a normal sports billboard ad” can both be true at the same time—there’s no conflict. But the explanation that’s useful for judging short-term price is the latter. Brand exposure affects the customer acquisition funnel, not the coin price. These two things aren’t interchangeable.
#Web3