3 ms·

Maybe. But at the same time, Twitter has a lot of influential and/or affluent users, which a lot of companies would like to reach. Maybe they shouldn't try to

by skewart 10y ago

Maybe. But at the same time, Twitter has a lot of influential and/or affluent users, which a lot of companies would like to reach. Maybe they shouldn't try to grow absolute user numbers and instead focus on being a publishing platform for influencers (keep in mind that lots of people who aren't Twitter users see popular tweets on other platforms). Then they could focus on providing great advertising and targeting for companies that want to reach influencers. At the end of the day Twitter's customers are advertisers. It seems like they are trying to sell these customers a way to reach a mass market audience. Maybe they should play to their unique advantage and focus on selling influencers' and/or business decision-makers' attention.

kristianc 10y ago
Twitter offers those products already - it offers promoted trends, custom emojis, and custom moments to a small pool of 'Premium' advertisers at $100-250k a pop. It's a good way to control the quality of output, but it isn't a good way to make mega millions, as these big companies and influencers only have so much advertising budget to go round. Consider also for someone like Trump or a Kardashian, the ability to reach 17.6M followers (and however many more through retweets + national news) for free with no filtering is a huge draw. It's hard to get them to pay for what they have already. Start to introduce features (as Facebook did) that make it more difficult for people to see tweets, and both the end consumers and the influencers themselves will revolt. Focus less on absolute user numbers and the quality of the product declines (you have less data to train your targeting algorithms on), and the site as a whole becomes less of a draw for influencers too. Not saying T shouldn't offer 'Premium' content to media companies, but going all in on large advertisers seems like a route to the poorhouse.

by skewart 10y ago

kristianc 10y ago

Twitter offers those products already - it offers promoted trends, custom emojis, and custom moments to a small pool of 'Premium' advertisers at $100-250k a pop. It's a good way to control the quality of output, but it isn't a good way to make mega millions, as these big companies and influencers only have so much advertising budget to go round. Consider also for someone like Trump or a Kardashian, the ability to reach 17.6M followers (and however many more through retweets + national news) for free with no filtering is a huge draw. It's hard to get them to pay for what they have already. Start to introduce features (as Facebook did) that make it more difficult for people to see tweets, and both the end consumers and the influencers themselves will revolt. Focus less on absolute user numbers and the quality of the product declines (you have less data to train your targeting algorithms on), and the site as a whole becomes less of a draw for influencers too. Not saying T shouldn't offer 'Premium' content to media companies, but going all in on large advertisers seems like a route to the poorhouse.