Are there any user engagement numbers to back this statement up? I constantly see and hear this, but a lot of the people I followed that initially left Twitter for Mastodon after Musk took over have recently returned.
EDITED: not financial, but user engagement.
> But Twitter’s U.S. advertising revenue for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May was $88 million, down 59 percent from a year earlier, according to an internal presentation obtained by The New York Times. The company has regularly fallen short of its U.S. weekly sales projections, sometimes by as much as 30 percent, the document said.
> That performance is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to the documents and seven current and former Twitter employees.
If that isn't abject failure, what is?
Musk apparently laid of massive numbers of engineers, each news story seemed to grow the tale.
If he laid off 50% of engineers, and the highest paid ones at that, I'd say profits would be up, or at least the same, even with that drop in revenue.
I wonder what the true story is, re: profit, and without any tax savings writedowns / earning reports in rhe mix.
Unfortunately, even if that is the case, there's $1B of debt servicing per year which wipes that completely out.
Even in what I think was Twitter's best year, they only made $580M profit (which ended up being a $220M loss because of an $800M settlement) - and that included a much better ad revenue situation, etc.
>If that isn't abject failure, what is?
Users fleeing the platform and no longer providing revenue would be abject failure. Companies pausing advertisement dollars as rates rise and tech generally having a tumultuous time in the market isn't an "abject failure".
From $8.63b in November to $7.8b in January, to $6.55b in April.
I don’t think all of his choices are bad (headcount reduction as an example, but I think he went overboard with it), but there are numbers that back it up somewhat.
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/fidelity-marks-down-value...