33 ms·
The two platforms are completely different. The users of FB (and LinkedIn) put their real information on the website, allowing advertisers to target effectively
by home_boi 10y ago
The two platforms are completely different. The users of FB (and LinkedIn) put their real information on the website, allowing advertisers to target effectively which raises the average ad value on the website. Intuitively, revenue = ad value * # impressions.
Twitter is in between anonymous forums (unfortunately they all died) and FB/LinkedIn in terms of ability of advertisers to target users. They're living off of high impressions, and they've basically already saturated the market. Now they need to somehow raise ad value, which would mean integrating hundreds of free, quality services to gather data like Google or tying Twitter accounts to real identities (like the Google+ attempt)
- nashadelic 10y agoDifferent yes but it's not that hard to look at the people you follow, the content you consume and generate what Twitter called the "taste graph". I'm not privy to what the issues are but I feel Twitter should/could've had a lot more success in terms of ads
- nl 10y agoYes, the anonymous accounts are a problem - but mostly because of the trolling, not the lack of identity. Snapchat and Instagram both have anonymous accounts and don't have a problem. Yet Twitter has people like Kim Kardashian selling tweets for $200K/tweet[1] (so there's your measurement of ad-value), and yet Twitter can't make money. Meanwhile, people are moving to Snapchat stories which is exactly the product Twitter should have built. Twitter, on the other-hand make the ground breaking decision to not include URLs in the 140 char tweet count. Twitter can't ship new product. [1] http://haveuheard.net/2015/08/kim-kardashian-how-much-money-celebs-tweets-instagram-posts/ http://haveuheard.net/2015/08/kim-kardashian-how-much-money-...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]