11–20 of 252 posts
More and more these social media platforms feel like scheme's. Round after round of funding without ever reaching profitablity
Is that really only occurring to poeple here, now?!
It's not mentioned in the article, but I really think President Trump has been a savior for Twitter. Without those controversial tweets, Twitter would rarely be in much of the public's mind, and the company would have continued its slow slide into irrelevance. As it is, barely a day goes by without "Twitter" being mentioned in national news.
It's not mentioned in the article, but I really think President Trump has been a savior for Twitter. Without those controversial tweets, Twitter would rarely be in much of the public's mind, and the company would have continued its slow slide into irrelevance. As it is, barely a day goes by without "Twitter" being mentioned in national news.
Anyone know if any Twitter execs (like Jack) have been donating to any Trump "foundations"?
Cool, so any indication on who is buying all my data?
More and more these social media platforms feel like scheme's. Round after round of funding without ever reaching profitablity
They would be profitable in an instant if they'd get rid of half their employees? Im not sure why they need SO many people for Twitter. I believe they have over 4000, they could easily get by with 1000
I'd fully expect many of those 4,000 to be sales staff, each of whom presumably brings in more than their salary in revenue to remain employed.
"may become profitable for the first time next quarter after ... ramping up deals to sell its data to other companies" Cool, so any indication on who is buying all my data?
More and more these social media platforms feel like scheme's. Round after round of funding without ever reaching profitablity
The monetization aspect is supposedly solved. If I suspect you can garner audience, I posit that said audience can be translated into ad dollars at some point in the future. Only the first part is speculative. And speculation is what venture funding is all about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd fully expect many of those 4,000 to be sales staff, each of whom presumably brings in more than their salary in revenue to remain employed.
Sales Departments have way too many people. I like that they employ people, but that’s a separate conversation. On a team of 8 sales people, typically 2 people together sell enough for the team to break even. The other 6, usually because of poor sales territory luck, sell maybe half their salary worth of services, but since growth is everything, an employee who makes 100k but only sells 50k is considered valuable.