5 ms·

Twitter May Be Profitable. No, Seriously

35 points by dabent 17y ago

jsm386 17y ago
link to the source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a1jwVtGQmErk&pos=13 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a1jw...
Maciek416 17y ago
Given all the speculation about "spending lavishly" on C-level executives and other such stuff, I wonder how much longer Twitter engineers can expect the soda to be free for? ;) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1007750 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1007750
- notauser 17y ago
  What's the point in raising $155mm if you aren't going to spend it on growing like crazy? Otherwise it'll just sit in the bank lowering the average return. (Free soda comes under 'development expenses' in my view.)
- idlewords 17y ago
  When I worked at the Twitter offices, the real free perk was expensive Belgian beer. The dynamic was this - the service would go down, the devs would work to bring it back up again, and then some grateful and wealthy Twitter user in the valley would send over some fancy beer as a thank you. I often wondered if this was creating perverse incentives, but I sure liked that fancy beer.
dotcoma 17y ago
Twitter may be profitable (in some distant future or in some far-away universe)
- dotcoma 17y ago
  all right, all right, kool-aid drinkers! ;-)
  - jrockway 17y ago
    The article cites a few more facts than you do. Sure, maybe Google and MS pay less than 35 million combined, and maybe their operating costs are more than 25 million. If so, then they aren't profitable. But if those numbers are right, then they are profitable, plain and simple. So the article is not just kool-aid drinking.
    - dotcoma 17y ago
      that's not like being really profitable. In the future, twitter may be (two words) profitable. but I doubt it.
robk 17y ago
I hope they don't splash out on "C-Level executives" frankly. Dick Costolo is pretty strong as COO material and I don't think Ev needs to go anywhere. This is like saying Google needed to add C-Level execs in 2002.
jsm386 17y ago
As the revenues are dependent on search deals with Microsoft and Google, predictions like this one from an expert such as Rand Fishkin would have serious implications if borne out: This Real-Time Search Thing is Outta Here Microsoft initially beat Google to the punch in announcing their integration with Twitter data in their SERPs. And in response, last Monday, Google released what is, in my opinion, an early test version of Twitter integration that's nowhere near ready for prime-time. Google has a history of jumping the gun to prevent other companies from stealing the press narrative, but in this case, I think it's seriously damaging (and nearly everyone, consumer or search enthusiast, agrees) their usability and relevance. This is, in my estimation (and many others), the worst implementation of new results Google's ever implemented. I imagine the clickthrough and abandonment stats have their usability folks up in arms already... http://www.seomoz.org/blog/8-predictions-for-seo-in-2010 http://www.seomoz.org/blog/8-predictions-for-seo-in-2010
felipe 17y ago
Twitter cannot afford to be just profitable. The amount of money already invested on Twitter requires it to be out-of-the-charts wildly profitable. That's the key issue.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  Really? I don't see that. Only on the order of $100 million has been invested in Twitter so far, from what I've been able to find. Given that their revenue is already a quarter of that I don't think there's a requirement for off-the-charts wild profitability here.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Twitter's investors may need them to be wildly profitable. Twitter itself probably doesn't vanish if they aren't. And in the current VC climate, Twitter probably had a lot of leverage negotiating terms.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  The amount of money already invested on Twitter requires it to be out-of-the-charts wildly profitable. How does Facebook compare in this regard?
  - wmf 17y ago
    Facebook needs revenue like the GDP of a small country to succeed.
- emmett 17y ago
  Twitter needs to be off-the-charts profitable...eventually. In the meantime, ordinary profitability would relieve a lot of pressure to optimize for the short term in order to raise money.
acl 17y ago
maybe != may be. No, seriously.
- lanstein 17y ago
  was going to crack that three spelling/grammatical mistakes/omissions in five words is pretty impressive :)
  - JoelMcCracken 17y ago
    It took me a while to understand the title because of the mistakes. Poor grammar makes you hard to understand.

35 points by dabent 17y ago

link to the source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a1jwVtGQmErk&pos=13 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a1jw...

Maciek416 17y ago

Given all the speculation about "spending lavishly" on C-level executives and other such stuff, I wonder how much longer Twitter engineers can expect the soda to be free for? ;) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1007750 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1007750

notauser 17y ago
What's the point in raising $155mm if you aren't going to spend it on growing like crazy? Otherwise it'll just sit in the bank lowering the average return. (Free soda comes under 'development expenses' in my view.)
idlewords 17y ago
When I worked at the Twitter offices, the real free perk was expensive Belgian beer. The dynamic was this - the service would go down, the devs would work to bring it back up again, and then some grateful and wealthy Twitter user in the valley would send over some fancy beer as a thank you. I often wondered if this was creating perverse incentives, but I sure liked that fancy beer.

dotcoma 17y ago

Twitter may be profitable (in some distant future or in some far-away universe)

dotcoma 17y ago
all right, all right, kool-aid drinkers! ;-)
- jrockway 17y ago
  The article cites a few more facts than you do. Sure, maybe Google and MS pay less than 35 million combined, and maybe their operating costs are more than 25 million. If so, then they aren't profitable. But if those numbers are right, then they are profitable, plain and simple. So the article is not just kool-aid drinking.
  - dotcoma 17y ago
    that's not like being really profitable. In the future, twitter may be (two words) profitable. but I doubt it.

robk 17y ago

I hope they don't splash out on "C-Level executives" frankly. Dick Costolo is pretty strong as COO material and I don't think Ev needs to go anywhere. This is like saying Google needed to add C-Level execs in 2002.

jsm386 17y ago

As the revenues are dependent on search deals with Microsoft and Google, predictions like this one from an expert such as Rand Fishkin would have serious implications if borne out: This Real-Time Search Thing is Outta Here Microsoft initially beat Google to the punch in announcing their integration with Twitter data in their SERPs. And in response, last Monday, Google released what is, in my opinion, an early test version of Twitter integration that's nowhere near ready for prime-time. Google has a history of jumping the gun to prevent other companies from stealing the press narrative, but in this case, I think it's seriously damaging (and nearly everyone, consumer or search enthusiast, agrees) their usability and relevance. This is, in my estimation (and many others), the worst implementation of new results Google's ever implemented. I imagine the clickthrough and abandonment stats have their usability folks up in arms already... http://www.seomoz.org/blog/8-predictions-for-seo-in-2010 http://www.seomoz.org/blog/8-predictions-for-seo-in-2010

felipe 17y ago

Twitter cannot afford to be just profitable. The amount of money already invested on Twitter requires it to be out-of-the-charts wildly profitable. That's the key issue.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
Really? I don't see that. Only on the order of $100 million has been invested in Twitter so far, from what I've been able to find. Given that their revenue is already a quarter of that I don't think there's a requirement for off-the-charts wild profitability here.
tptacek 17y ago
Twitter's investors may need them to be wildly profitable. Twitter itself probably doesn't vanish if they aren't. And in the current VC climate, Twitter probably had a lot of leverage negotiating terms.
tokenadult 17y ago
The amount of money already invested on Twitter requires it to be out-of-the-charts wildly profitable. How does Facebook compare in this regard?
- wmf 17y ago
  Facebook needs revenue like the GDP of a small country to succeed.
emmett 17y ago
Twitter needs to be off-the-charts profitable...eventually. In the meantime, ordinary profitability would relieve a lot of pressure to optimize for the short term in order to raise money.

acl 17y ago

maybe != may be. No, seriously.

lanstein 17y ago
was going to crack that three spelling/grammatical mistakes/omissions in five words is pretty impressive :)
- JoelMcCracken 17y ago
  It took me a while to understand the title because of the mistakes. Poor grammar makes you hard to understand.