2 ms·

That must be why they didn't really grow until about 3 years after they were founded: http://static1.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4abbcbef60b187740be440e1 http:

That must be why they didn't really grow until about 3 years after they were founded: http://static1.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4abbcbef60b187740be440e1 http://static1.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4abbcbef60b187740... And yes, it was "very early" in their growth cycle. In fact celebrity embrace was the catalyst for their growth. No Ashton Kutcher = no Twitter today.

harryh 12y ago
'eh. I think cause and effect are pretty hard to untangle here. Mostly I think you're wrong. But I'll admit that it's hard to bring real evidence to the table. There were a billion tweets before Ashton though and the celebs showed up because there was an audience to be had. I can see your point of view though.