Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 444 posts

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#141

Post by bduerst »

umeshunni wrote: post #57
danielvaughn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is absurd. I don't get why the focus is all on FB. I honestly only keep FB around because my family is on it, and sometimes I use FB messenger with my friends. It has zero impact on my life. On the other hand, a single glance into twitter can lead to 2-3 hours of a sustained state of mild rage, and you just feel bad when you finally exit the app.

The focus is on FB because they are the ones taking ad revenue away from news publishers and traditional media. That gives the media more incentive to publish negative articles about them. When in doubt, follow the money.

This is poisoning the well because there are legitimate reasons being reported to dislike FB's smarmy practices; it's not all sour grapes from media.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#143

Post by robryan »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #114
cronix wrote: post #75

So I never created a Twitter account. Over the years, there are a few people that I liked to read their thoughts on Twitter, so I'd manually go to their wall and read occasionally. They're all verified. Over time, it became cumbersome to continue doing this and I thought I'd give in and create an account (on the website) so that these people were all easy to access from a single point. So I did, and went and immediat…

> I have never encountered a more hostile website I think Instagram and/or Pintrest often require you to log in before letting you see even the first picture you click on.

The Reddit mobile website might be the worst. Every aspect of it is geared to making it as annoying as possible to use so that you are forced to download their app (or go find a better 3rd party one).

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#144

Post by oh_sigh »

madballster wrote: post #135
robertlagrant wrote: post #118

If you look at the graph of the share price since IPO it doesn't exactly look as though Twitter is suddenly doing badly.

It's only once you compare the performance of Twitter to other tech shares and realize the last 12 years were the biggest tech bull market in history. And Twitter shows zero return.

To put it in perspective, if you invested $10k in TWTR in 2013, I invested $10k in GOOG, and Mary invested $10k in AMZN - you'd have $9k, I'd have $55k, and Mary would have $90k

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#146

Post by adamrezich »

kilroy123 wrote: post #139

Honestly? It's because their ads are trash. I know lots of marketing people and they all stay away from using them. Say what you will about Facebook and Instagram, their ads are better overall. There's been several times an Instagram ad showed up in my feed, and I said shut up and take my money. Nothing like that has ever happened on Twitter for me.

when they (and other platforms) started having sponsored posts that, themselves, have a pre-roll ad that plays before the user is granted the privilege of viewing them, it reeked of desperation. years later now this is the norm—crazy.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#147

Post by mgh2 »

kilroy123 wrote: post #139

Honestly? It's because their ads are trash. I know lots of marketing people and they all stay away from using them. Say what you will about Facebook and Instagram, their ads are better overall. There's been several times an Instagram ad showed up in my feed, and I said shut up and take my money. Nothing like that has ever happened on Twitter for me.

Very effective for free influencer marketing or crypto scamming though

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#148

Post by marcusverus »

madballster wrote: post #135
robertlagrant wrote: post #118

If you look at the graph of the share price since IPO it doesn't exactly look as though Twitter is suddenly doing badly.

It's only once you compare the performance of Twitter to other tech shares and realize the last 12 years were the biggest tech bull market in history. And Twitter shows zero return.

It's not just tech--the entire market has been on fire since the Twitter IPO. The S&P has risen 150%.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#149

Post by robryan »

skinkestek wrote: post #102
j4yav wrote: post #36

I actually still get a pretty decent experience out of Twitter. The only topic I really engage with is remote work.. I don’t follow very many people (only humans who post real content) and unfollow anyone who goes “off topic”. Which is too bad, but it keeps my feed simple and sane. I feel like Twitter would be way better if people had different topics you could subscribe (or not) to.

> I feel like Twitter would be way better if people had different topics you could subscribe (or not) to. All services would be better if they were more like Google+ (but didn't share name with a despised effort to crush pseudonyms and wasn't owned by a company that buried it as soon as they had been forced to iron out the wrinkles ;-)

I suspect that the complexity tradeoff isn't worth it for them. As in it would solve the problem but probably send overall engagement down.

Opt in would be nice, I am sure high follower people would rather go to the effort of categorising their tweets rather than losing followers when they decide to Tweet about their local sports.

Re: Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates

#150

Post by sumtechguy »

djbusby wrote: post #103
woodruffw wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe we do: it's called ActivityPub[1], and it's what Mastodon and others use. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub

Surprisingly difficult for Joe Public to get on - how to solve that problem?

The problem is number of users they want to see on that platform. If you want to follow/read/interact with someone you will be there. If not you do not care about it. It is surprisingly hard to make a network of people if your network has no people in it. I had to teach this lesson to several managers over the years 'setup a page where our users can interact'. That turned out to be the easy part. The hard part was getting anyone to actually post anything. Much less interact with each other. That happens a decent amount when you try to move into a space that already has established players.
Post reply on HN