Every day it gets a little bit worse!
No, really, that should be their slogan.
Everyday, a little bit Xitter!
Freedom of speech doesn’t exist on a privately-owned and controlled platform.
Of course, you have the freedom to not use the shitty platform that Elon is flushing down the toilet a bit more each day.
But Musk has proclaimed himself a “free speech absolutist”.
Well then I take it all back, there’s no way he would lie about something.
Okay, that was my for-real laugh-out-loud of the day. Thank you.
Twitter CEO claims advertisers are returning to the platform, but they aren’t spending much:
How can companies that large even spend such absurdly trivial amounts of money? I mean what does a $781 ad campaign by a company with (quick google of AT&T) $120.7 billion in revenues in 2023 even look like?
I’d presume they’re just running tests - are Twitter ads effective again? Who knows.
You can’t even run tests for that amount ($10 for Visa???). I’d guess either Twitter is giving them some ridiculous freebies, or this is residual from an old campaign that is winding down.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this “return” of advertisers is actually some kind of fixed-length campaign suspension which has timed out and Twitter is using up whatever happened to remain in the account. For instance, perhaps suspending a campaign on Twitter means that the ads are turned off for 6 months and then the account automatically becomes active again. Rather than these companies coming back, it could be that their ad suspension status automatically timed out. It would explain why the amounts are so low. (just a wild guess on my part. I have no info to back this up)
“Except for that, Mrs. Lincoln…”
Well, that fits in nicely with Elmo’s established business strategy of telling each and every of his creditors to fuck right off into thin air.
Agile swindling!
In June, Yaccarino joined X (then Twitter) from NBCUniversal where she served as chairman of its advertising and partnerships group, with the goal of getting X’s ads business back on track. Those efforts are still underway, as Bloomberg’s report notes she also told the bankers that advertisers were returning to X, but with smaller budgets than before. She additionally noted the company would be cash-flow positive if not for the debt owed – a figure that’s now $13 billion. Bloomberg estimated that X also owes around $1.2 billion in interest payments on that debt per year.
I don’t understand, they just got Visa to do $10 in ads. Can’t they put that $13 billion in debt on the corporate Visa card now and negotiate better interest rates than $1.2 billion a year just to service the debt?
Also, I must not spend enough of my life following Elmo since I don’t X Twit. I found out in that same article that Elmo is being investigated by the SEC for his purchase of Twitter:
The federal agency charged with regulating securities markets is currently investigating Musk for allegedly violating securities laws when he bought Twitter shares before buying the social media platform, which he has since renamed X.
Buying Twitter stock before acquiring the company could mean Musk was guilty of insider trading, market manipulation or even violation for fair market disclosure.
The SEC said on Thursday that Musk failed to appear to testify last month as requested. According to a filing by the agency in federal court in San Francisco, first spotted by Bloomberg, the agency is auditing Musk’s statements and disclosures about the stock transactions.
or it wasn’t even marketing, but e.g. somebody from HR or a local office in Kansas City inviting to an open event …
Huh! Guess it’s true Visa is “everywhere you’d want to be”! It seems fair to exclude the cost of servicing billions of dollars of debt if it is a large amount. I recently read it takes about thirty one years for a billion seconds to pass.
Another far-right antisemitic racist white supremacist in Musk’s orbit:
Does ‘not fanboying’ Elmo cause brain damage?
I’m not sure. FWIW the quoted part was meant sarcastically. I’m somewhat of a debt hawk, and annoyed when the Canadian federal government uses the same crappy logic to not include the billions in debt owed by our provinces. But surely stockholders would be understanding, if you patiently explained that you are cash flow positive^ ?
^ except for trivial considerations only of interest to mountebanks, the dyspeptic, auditors, stakeholders or professional accountants. (Note: This is also sarcastic.)