3 ms·
Let go of 80% of workers and 84% of revenue. Brilliant.
by ryoshu 2y ago
Let go of 80% of workers and 84% of revenue. Brilliant.
- bdcravens 2y agoAren't the two disconnected? The revenue lost is a result of advertisers not wanting to be connected to Musk's politics. Downsizing isn't what caused that.
- tester756 2y agoYou can't tell easily without informations from inside.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI think it is fairly easy to tell when advertisers publicly pulled out and gave a very explicit explanation.
- ryoshu 2y agoMusk got rid of the people who owned the relationships with the brands and agencies that drove the ad revenue. Burning those relationships plus getting rid of content moderators made sure advertisers were very skeptical of being on the platform. Then there's the GARM lawsuit causing that tiny org to shut down, suing another non-profit for point out brand safety issues, etc. It was Musk's actions.
- bdcravens 2y agoI thought the advertisers pulling out was more a direct result of the tweets he posted or liked. Perhaps those relationships were strained already due to what you've pointed out, but I don't know that those employees could have made a difference in relation to those posts.
- buzzerbetrayed 2y agoCongrats. You completely fabricated a history to fit your world view.
- asadotzler 2y agoFiring the teams that manage moderation and letting Coca-Cola and Nike paid for ads show along side Nazi and porn content, basically allowing the ad side of the platform to go to shit, is actually much of the reason for the advertiser exodus.
- etc-hosts 2y agoI'm starting to see ads during Great Replacement and Kill The Brown People threads on Twitter. It's not pushing me towards buying a product or clicking an ad.
- aleph_minus_one 2y agoMy stance on this rather is: the advertiser should like it if viewers consider the product advertised to be better than the tweets around it. :-D (I hope I didn't give Elon Musk a bad idea concerning how to pitch his agenda to advertisers ;-) ).