4 ms·
No, it doesn’t. The entire value of Twitter depends on their entire monetization. That comes from revenue per mDAU, not just mDAU. Why should a disinterested,
by contrast 4y ago
No, it doesn’t. The entire value of Twitter depends on their entire monetization. That comes from revenue per mDAU, not just mDAU.
Why should a disinterested, objective financier care if $1 billion dollars of revenue came with a real figure of 20% spambots rather than the estimated 5%? That just means true revenue per mDAU is something like 18% better than estimated.
If the real number is 50%, then true revenue per user is about double. If the real number is actually 99%, true revenue per user is about 20x. There would also probably be some very quick wins for improving the quality of the service.
There may be an argument for needing accurate mDAU figures - but Musk isn’t making one, the financiers didn’t ask for them, the market has NEVER had accurate figures for social media anyway, and there’s no legal standard for it.
- smaryjerry 4y agoIt’s not a good thing to have more bots at the same revenue because you aren’t just buying a companies past performance but their future performance. If advertisers thought they were buying 1M real person impressions and it turned out to be half bits, next time they pay you money they would only want to pay half as much.
- Marsymars 4y ago> If advertisers thought they were buying 1M real person impressions and it turned out to be half bits, next time they pay you money they would only want to pay half as much. That’s if you assume that advertisers have no idea what the result of ad impressions are. (Which is an argument I’m sympathetic to, but isn’t flattering to the ad industry.) If they do have an idea of the results of ad impressions, it would mean that their ads are actually proportionally more effective than they thought, since their revenue brought in by ads has stayed the same but with fewer impressions.