3 ms·
The article seems to suggest that twitter makes up a sales channel that generated M$6.5 in revenues. That isn't M$6.5 in profits for a margin-challenged busines
by raganwald 17y ago
The article seems to suggest that twitter makes up a sales channel that generated M$6.5 in revenues. That isn't M$6.5 in profits for a margin-challenged business. Also, there is no indication this is incremental revenue. For all we know, Twitter simply displaced existing email newsletter revenue or RSS feed revenue.
It could still be a very good thing, for example if it lowers costs. But I would like to understand whether this is incremental business or simply replacing another mechanism.
I'd like to think that the retweeting phenomenon really could lead to Dell getting entirely new business from people who follow people who follow Dell. But I don't know.
- Timothee 17y agoI agree with you. Nothing indicates that it's business it wouldn't have had otherwise. Yes, their Twitter account is where the traffic and sales came from, but what part of it wouldn't have resulted in a sale without Twitter is the key element. One thing is sure though: it costs a lot less for them to send tweets than to send emails.
- modoc 17y agoFor any major company any given channels' numbers have some percentage of sales which have cannibalized from other channels. That's just the nature of the universe. There's no accurate way to measure how much is incremental revenue versus cannibalized from another channel. So is some of that 6.5 million cannibalized from another channel. Yes. Is all of it? No. Some of it is new (new customers or new sales due to reaching out to existing or potential customers). It's also a dirt cheap channel, which is key. For ANY company, driving $6.5 million in revenue via a new marketing channel which has close to zero cost, is a great win.