What Twitter Earns Each Time You Look at Your Feed
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Outside of US, to even participate in ad-buys, you'll have to seek out Twitter's agency partners (not transparent, therefore, not obvious who they are), and when you find them, you'll have to commit to a minimum of $10,000 spend over a period of 3 months, which is highly prohibitive. I understand why they're doing this, but that's for another post.
What this means to the difference in revenue per 1000 timeline views is the kind of audience businesses are likely to target. If you are buying ads in the US, you'll most likely buy ads to target people living in US and if you're living outside of US, your target audience will likely be outside of US.
Since self-serve ads are fully accessible in US to anyone, the amount of money spent is obviously a couple of magnitude larger. That means higher competition (read:bidding) and higher revenue, and therefore revenue per 1000 timeline view to Twitter.
The US will still be more expensive than everywhere else even if everyone could purchase ads the same way, but the difference wouldn't be at such magnitude.
$0.1 Google revenue per search.
$0.001 Twitter revenue per timeline view.
.1 vs .001 is a 100x difference
Do you spend 100x mor time on twitter
That's probably related to the fact that Twitter is still relatively ad-free; it also means they have a lot of ceiling into which they can increase their revenue, albeit at the usual cost of negative user experience!
Has anyone here worked in advertising for social networks which use timeline-style feeds? I'd be interested to hear how (and if) the businesses practices differ from 'traditional' online advertising.