brands need streamers but can’t tolerate what they really are

Xokas has been in the eye of the hurricane for more than a week for his words about Ester Expósito. But the video that ended with his hamburger at Burger King talks about something else: about money, class and the erratic attempts of big brands to reach the youth audience by signing role models born on the Internet who are not exactly impeccable. What has happened? Burger King Spain canceled on Thursday its collaboration with Joaquín Domínguez, known as El Xokas, within the Grand King campaign in which four influencers They promote a different menu, and with their choices, customers choose who the winner is. The brand removed from its website and application the Cheese Bacon Classic menu, associated with the content creator. Hours later, via an Instagram storythe company confirmed the breakup and assured that the streamer’s statements “in no way represent the values ​​that we defend as a brand.” Fame is sought. Xokas was chosen for this campaign because he was, of the four creators signed (with him were Marta Díaz, Peldanyos and Marina Rivers), the one with the greatest reach: he became the streamer Spanish with the most subscribers on Twitch and has had some milestones on the platform, such as when in 2022 it had one of the highest audience peaks in its history, with 1.2 million viewers in the final of a recreation of the Squid Game in ‘Minecraft’. That explains why Burger King chose him and why his departure from the campaign has had so much echo. The version that has circulated these days places the origin of the conflict in El Xokas’ comments about Ester Expósito, and it is true that they were the triggers of the controversy, but not its complete cause. The origin of the controversy. The first controversial comments came more than a week before the dismissal: while talking about Mbappé, the actress’s partner, El Xokas reacted to a phrase that she had uttered on the podcast La Pija and La Quinqui“I wouldn’t talk to Nazis.” From there he said that it was not worth being with such an attractive woman if he maintained that political thought and finished by saying that “I would rather be with a 6 than with someone like Expósito.” The reaction was immediate: figures like Irene Montero or Javier Bardem publicly criticized the streamer. Burger King, however, did not move the menu from the website in those days. The icing. What did make the company rethink its deal with El Xokas was another video, later and not directly related to Expósito. In a live interview, after being asked in a mocking tone if he had tickets for the soccer World Cup final, El Burger King became an argument for humiliation. The boycott pressure escalated to Congress, where Compromís spokesperson, Águeda Micó, demanded explanations. It’s not the first time. Spain already had a comparable precedent. In 2018, Cuétara canceled his Choco Flakes cereal campaign with Cabronazi, a meme account that had dressed his mascot, in less than 24 hours after a wave of criticism. like a pink version of Hitler. The company apologized and stopped marketing the limited edition, claiming that it had miscalculated the impact of a collaboration designed with “a casual tone”. The Xokas shares a pattern with cases where the problem was outside the campaign: Adidas, for example, broke its agreement with Kanye West in 2022 after a series of anti-Semitic comments, a decision that It cost the artist close to 250 million dollars. Five years earlier, Disney had broken off its relationship with YouTuber PewDiePie, then the creator with the most subscribers in the world, after one of his videos will display a poster with an anti-Semitic message. The past returns. Another pattern, different but also frequent: controversial and old content that resurfaces and dynamites a recently signed collaboration. Doritos named Samantha Hudson an ambassador and fired her 48 hours later, when Tweets that she had published in 2015 went viralonly fifteen years old. Something similar happened to YouTuber Shane Dawson in 2020: when old videos of his with racist jokes and content that sexualized minors resurfaced, Morphe withdrawn from sale the makeup line she had launched with him, Conspiracy. The brand discovered, at the same time as the public, that the history of the person it had signed was longer and more problematic than it believed. What this tells us. Each of these cases has its peculiarities, but a common structure: brands need what only an internet creator can give them, proximity to young audiences who no longer watch television. But that access sometimes comes without a script or editorial control. Hiring an actor for an advertisement is buying a closed message, but hiring a creator is buying a person, not just their image: with their history, their unfiltered live performance and the controversial opinions they carry. In his day we already have how food brands have been betting for years on this access to influencers despite the risk and the surveillance of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, but this controversy, above all, reveals how the need for traditional brands that have built their wealth and the prestige of their brand through offline It has to adapt to new times, new languages ​​and, above all, more extreme personalities. At the moment, it is the law of the jungle: the creator with the most followers wins the contracts, but it does not guarantee a campaign free of controversy. Another very different question is to what extent this risk is not implicit in the contract they sign, because in these times some noise in any direction is a real treasure. In Xataka | The controversy of Lola Lolita and the 4,000 euro bag reveals something else: influencers have stopped having normal lives

“Society will not tolerate that only a few companies do all the learning”

That things are not very good lately in the tech industry is a reality (depending on which side you are on, of course). The economy around the exacerbated demand for AI data centers It has become so devirtualized that it is no longer surprising that a major technology company has spent tens of billions of dollars on another big deal. And as a consequence of this, component shortage It is making the purchase of technological products by the consumer increasingly more complicated. So yes, you could say that things are not very there. But there’s also some comedy in Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella coming out to point this very thing out. And the company precisely contributes greatly to the situation we are experiencing. In an interview For the Wall Street Journal, Nadella warns that the current AI development model is neither sustainable nor legitimate in the eyes of society. What is this about? Nadella has long warned that AI has to generate real impact to justify the resources it consumes. Already He did it last January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he warned that if AI tokens do not improve tangible results in health, education or productivity, “social permission” to continue allocating energy and money to their development would be lost. Recently, in a similar speechhas dared to point out those who, according to him, are concentrating too much power. Concentration. For Nadella, a small group of companies (those that build the most advanced models, such as OpenAI, Anthropic or Google) are accumulating the value generated by AI while, at the same time, stirring up fear. And the conversation in recent years has revolved around topics such as massive job lossesthe existential risks about its use and about how these companies require almost unlimited resources to continue growing. “You can’t say that all white-collar jobs are going to disappear, that this could be a weapon, and at the same time use all the power available to build data centers,” counted the executive to the WSJ. Society is not going to tolerate a few models and a few companies “doing all the learning in the world,” he continued. “Narrative is not enough because now we have to demonstrate with facts,” he insisted to the medium. Who he points to without naming. Nadella does not mention specific companies in the interview, but the context says it all. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic (and Microsoft partner with a multi-million dollar deal signed last year) predicted in 2025 that AI could eliminate half of jobs entry-level before 2029. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI (another long-standing Microsoft partner, in which the company has invested billions) has also made similar warnings about employment, although recently he admitted he was wrong in their predictions. Both companies have led to tensions with the United States Government regarding the safety of its models. What Microsoft is doing. Nadella also points out in the interview that Microsoft has launched a series of low-cost models to make access to AI cheaper for its enterprise clients, and has presented Copilot Coworkan autonomous AI agent that allows the user to choose between different models (including the cheapest ones) depending on the task. The WSJ points out In his article, the company is also considering whether to host a version of DeepSeek on its platform, a company that not long ago turned the technology industry upside down with its R1 model (it is also a company accused by OpenAI and Anthropic of having copied their models). The vision it proposes. For Nadella, the future of AI lies in a more distributed model, that is, companies using their own data, with access to a variety of models at different prices, without depending on a handful of suppliers. He defines the companies of the future as “continuous learning systems” that combine human knowledge and AI. In Nadella’s vision, a company’s capital would not only be its assets, but also its ability to process and learn, something he calls “token capital.” And he warns that protecting intellectual property will be key so that companies do not become mere executors of what the big models dictate. Between the lines. Nadella’s position also has a strategic reading. And Microsoft has not managed to develop its own model that competes with the most advanced ones from OpenAI, Anthropic or Google. Furthermore, according to share WSJ, its Copilot users have begun to prefer alternatives, according to data from the analysis firm Recon Analytics. Without its own header model, it is in its best interest for the market to move towards variety and price competition, and not towards consolidation around the most powerful models (which are, precisely, those of its partners). Cover image | Microsoft and M Rezaie In Xataka | “AI is killing my books”: Tim Ferriss has been selling productivity tips for years that ChatGPT now gives away for free

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.