Fox News ad revenue is way lower than twitter and they are notorious for losing advertisers. Additionally I think they have a pretty narrow advertising base. I mean sure nothing to shake a stick at but not something you want to lean into if you want to grow from Twitters size
> I think they have a pretty narrow advertising base
Maybe the number of advertisers is going down, but their ad business is still doing well[1].
If someday their only two advertisers were ExxonMobil and the NRA, but they bought a combined total of $4B in ads, then Fox News would be doing incredibly well.
The same could be true for Twitter. The advertisers who don't care about the site's stigma may end up just snapping up more inventory, as Fox advertisers seem to have done.
Musk doesn't own Twitter, advertisers do, and they will, until Twitter somehow finds alternative revenue sources. All the nonsense people post about "democratic oversight of Twitter", or "independent" policy enforcement boards, completely obfuscates this.
Most people are not being lucid enough: platforms didn't ban Trump because of some rigorous decision-making; they did so because they knew advertisers would destroy any platform that kept him on. Same with any other high-profile bans. Musk can't unban these people without advertisers crushing Twitter.
Keep in mind that bigger corporations spend a larger percentage of their revenues on marketing than SMBs. With Pareto's law, this means the largest corps in the world represent a huge fraction of ad spend. Twitter, news media, and all major online platforms are completely owned by the largest corporations on Earth.
Digg had the same misunderstanding. He owns some computers and a bit of IP. He doesn't own what makes it worth something. If people or advertisers leave, he has to turn the computers off since he can't afford to run them.
Yes, I agreed with that. The computers and intellectual property (Twitter) he owns are worthless if he makes it so no one wants to be there. This is why I referred to Digg: the people in charge tanked their near $200m valuation thinking they didn't need to care about the users, and finally had to sell off the brand and domain for $500k.
Elon owns Twitter, the property. He does not own Twitter, the community. No community, no advertisers. No advertisers, no property unless he can do better than Google's pitiful results at finding an alternative to advertising.
36 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 93.4 ms ] threadI can't read the FT article, but does it have more info than this? https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-11-02/... No reason why, no named sources?
None of this matters. Regardless of what Musk ends up doing, advertisers will return.
Wait really? Why do you think this, if he does succeed in turning into to hellscape he promised advertisers he wouldn't.
Advertisers pretend to have morals, but they go where eyeballs are in the end.
Maybe the number of advertisers is going down, but their ad business is still doing well[1].
If someday their only two advertisers were ExxonMobil and the NRA, but they bought a combined total of $4B in ads, then Fox News would be doing incredibly well.
The same could be true for Twitter. The advertisers who don't care about the site's stigma may end up just snapping up more inventory, as Fox advertisers seem to have done.
1. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fox-corp-beat...
https://archive.ph/drUqJ
Twitter Poll just posted:
Advertisers should support:
* Freedom of Speech
* Political Correctness
Does he realize he's the CEO of this company? I'm way too dumb for this 4d chess.
After all... freedom of speech is good, and political correctness is bad.
It's a shame the only choice is such a stark dichotomy. It's not 4D chess... dude has a 2-bit brain with a parity error.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/loral-suspe...
Most people are not being lucid enough: platforms didn't ban Trump because of some rigorous decision-making; they did so because they knew advertisers would destroy any platform that kept him on. Same with any other high-profile bans. Musk can't unban these people without advertisers crushing Twitter.
Keep in mind that bigger corporations spend a larger percentage of their revenues on marketing than SMBs. With Pareto's law, this means the largest corps in the world represent a huge fraction of ad spend. Twitter, news media, and all major online platforms are completely owned by the largest corporations on Earth.
Elon owns Twitter, the property. He does not own Twitter, the community. No community, no advertisers. No advertisers, no property unless he can do better than Google's pitiful results at finding an alternative to advertising.
Also just in: it looks like this is fake news from a legacy media site.
Maybe they are positioning the company to buy out Depends...
https://www.depend.com/en-us/