4 ms·
The difference with twitter is they could fire their way to profitability. 2016: revenue $2.25B; $.9B cost of revenue; R&D $.71B; sales & marketing $.957B; G&A
by x0x0 10y ago
The difference with twitter is they could fire their way to profitability.
2016: revenue $2.25B; $.9B cost of revenue; R&D $.71B; sales & marketing $.957B; G&A $.29B -> loss from operations ($.367B).
Someone could take an axe to those costs and get the company comfortably profitable.
2016 numbers from page 2 of spreadsheet 2016 q4 selected company metrics and financials available: https://investor.twitterinc.com/results.cfm https://investor.twitterinc.com/results.cfm
edit: thanks @mastazi
- mastazi 10y ago> loss from operations ($367B) I think (and hope) that you missed a dot there :-)
- bigtunacan 10y agoWhile the scale is different I don't see that the underlying issue is. What you are suggesting about making Twitter profitable (which I happen to agree with) seems to be what they are attempting to do at Medium with these layoffs. An aside on the Twitter front though; at this point I'm not sure cost slashing is going to help their stock prices at this point even if they turn a profit as they are already showing declining revenues.
- x0x0 10y agoA prerequisite to the cut-your-way-to-profitability plan is income. There's no evidence Medium had much income.
- bigtunacan 10y agoCan you provide evidence there is no income? They aren't a publicly traded company so I haven't seen their earnings reports...
- x0x0 10y agoIt's a personal guess, based on knowledge of the ad market, inferences from their firing decisions, and gossip from some friends who know people there.
- idiot_stick 10y ago>Someone could take an axe to those costs and get the company comfortably profitable. Twitter has a celebrity SV CEO. That's his job; what are they waiting for?