Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Will Show Who Pays for Ads and How Much They Spend

bloomberg.com

91–94 of 94 posts

Re: Twitter Will Show Who Pays for Ads and How Much They Spend

#91
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Facebook's monthly ARPU is closer to $7 in the US in 2017, which is absurdly high (vs the rest of the world). Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...

Ahh yes, the figures I saw were the same $26, but implied it was yearly rather than quarterly. I wonder why USians are so much more valuable to advertisers than Europeans.

Probably because (and this is personal opinion, not researched facts) the US is in a huge advertising bubble. We have found out just how effective advertising is at selling products and we have numbers to back it up so and decent sized business is throwing money to advertisers like mad to drive sales. If sales start to drop though, they double down and throw more money for more advertising; but what they top level administrators aren't considering is the non-linear nature of advertising and exposure and eventually advertisee fatigue enough. By time the sales numbers come back for your second or third round you already paid for the advertising and just burned through tons of your initial profits for minor gains. At the end of it all though you likely still have positive overall numbers from advertising, they don't show how badly advertising performed per cost near the end because the big initial exposure brings up the average. Rinse and repeat!

Also, there aren't much of any protections for consumers against false and deceptive advertising unless you have a million dollar legal team to take on the business's multi-million dollar legal team.

Re: Twitter Will Show Who Pays for Ads and How Much They Spend

#92
I hope this sounds the alarm on how shockingly cheap it is to promote political extremism on these platforms. Donald Trump saw much cheaper effective ad rates than Clinton on social media by crafting viral outrage memes as ads.

It will be interesting to look at the effective CPM rates of various candidates on Twitter using this data. I'm hoping they don't just show how many people were shown the Tweet as an ad, but also those who saw it from organic distribution via retweet.

I think you'll find that outrageous, incendiary politicians pay a lot less per view than reasonable ones.

Re: Twitter Will Show Who Pays for Ads and How Much They Spend

#93

What I'd like is a "Twitter made $x from you in the last year through showing you ads. Click here to pay us $2x and not see any for the next year."

Among many other reasons referenced by others, the users who would be willing to fork over a subscription fee to access twitter are exactly the demographic that twitter needs in order to keep its advertising attractive to marketers. A successful subscription option for a service like twitter would greatly diminish the value of their advertising inventory.

Re: Twitter Will Show Who Pays for Ads and How Much They Spend

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh yes, the figures I saw were the same $26, but implied it was yearly rather than quarterly. I wonder why USians are so much more valuable to advertisers than Europeans.

Probably because (and this is personal opinion, not researched facts) the US is in a huge advertising bubble. We have found out just how effective advertising is at selling products and we have numbers to back it up so and decent sized business is throwing money to advertisers like mad to drive sales. If sales start to drop though, they double down and throw more money for more advertising; but what they top level ad…

I do wonder who is paying that $7. Is is companies trying to get you to buy their product (that you need) rather than a competitor. Is it companies selling you tat you don't need. Is it companies trying to scam you. Is it companies trying to get your vote?
Post reply on HN