4 ms·

It's not a strange claim. It's a ridiculous claim[1]. It says a lot about this market when a prominent angel investor would publicly make such a foolish claim

It's not a strange claim. It's a ridiculous claim[1]. It says a lot about this market when a prominent angel investor would publicly make such a foolish claim and follow it with "would be interested in seeing some demographic studies on this if anyone has them" when this information is readily available to anybody who knows how to use Google and has 30 seconds. [1] http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2014/06/ad_revenue_per_user_google_facebook_twitter.php http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2014/0...

tlb 12y ago
'Worth' in this context measures the potential for monetization, not actual current revenue like the ARPU graph shows.
- 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
  Calacanis' words: > Now, I would say Twitter’s users are worth 2-5x as much as the average FB users because the product is just much more “upscale.” It draws the more elite, powerful, and intelligent folks (overall). There's no measurement here. There's no analysis of potential monetization. All we have is a lazy, uneducated argument that a summer analyst at an IB wouldn't get away with.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    You appear to be (deliberately?) misreading Calacanis' claim, as made particularly clear when he says he doesn't have demographics. So the data he's discussing obviously isn't a google away.
    - jasonmcalacanis 12y ago
      Thank you... for reading!
  - jasonmcalacanis 12y ago
    1. I'm not an analyst and everyone knows that -- I'm an angel investor and former journalist. 2. It's not a lazy or uneducated argument -- it's an opinion... that's why it says "I would say..." before the claim. 3. The opinion is based on the face that the FB = "all users" but Twitter = a subset of all users. That subset contains the most powerful politicians, CEOs, technologists, finance, art, celebrities, journalists and writers -- who are addicted to the platform. Those same folks are not spending their time on FB in any major way. Those folks are massively influential, thus my opinion.

tlb 12y ago

'Worth' in this context measures the potential for monetization, not actual current revenue like the ARPU graph shows.

7Figures2Commas 12y ago
Calacanis' words: > Now, I would say Twitter’s users are worth 2-5x as much as the average FB users because the product is just much more “upscale.” It draws the more elite, powerful, and intelligent folks (overall). There's no measurement here. There's no analysis of potential monetization. All we have is a lazy, uneducated argument that a summer analyst at an IB wouldn't get away with.
- x0x0 12y ago
  You appear to be (deliberately?) misreading Calacanis' claim, as made particularly clear when he says he doesn't have demographics. So the data he's discussing obviously isn't a google away.
  - jasonmcalacanis 12y ago
    Thank you... for reading!
- jasonmcalacanis 12y ago
  1. I'm not an analyst and everyone knows that -- I'm an angel investor and former journalist. 2. It's not a lazy or uneducated argument -- it's an opinion... that's why it says "I would say..." before the claim. 3. The opinion is based on the face that the FB = "all users" but Twitter = a subset of all users. That subset contains the most powerful politicians, CEOs, technologists, finance, art, celebrities, journalists and writers -- who are addicted to the platform. Those same folks are not spending their time on FB in any major way. Those folks are massively influential, thus my opinion.