- On 30 March 2016
Free service of social networking and microblogging, created in March 2006 by Obvious Corporation in San Francisco, Twitter by 10 years provides users, through the platform, a personal page updateable via text messages with a maximum length of 140 characters (120 if you place a link or an image).
But what we are told about this social is truth or under the façade, the red bag, layoff, there are other stories? Let the truth that Jack Dorsey, Ceo permanent, not always says …
Twitter has perpetually budgets in red. Despite the revenue of 1.4 billion in 2014, the company has nevertheless lost 578 million. Same trend during the first half of 2015: 938 million collected, but with a net loss of 299 million.
Why Twitter is not profitable? Simple. Has a few users: Facebook has four times, more than 1 billion against just 300 million, failing to reach the number of people expected and especially without taking advantage of the mass of users that is registeredonce, but never came back.
But there’s more: common standards, 320 million users (8 in Italy) and more than 1billion dollars is a lot of stuff, there is no doubt. But Twitter is a publicly traded company by 2013, and you know that Wall Street expects steady growth: in 2012, Twitter reached 66 million new users, an increase of 50%; in 2013, 55 million, an increase of 25%; in 2014 has grown of 18% with 47 million users, and between March and June 2015 reached only 2 million more.
In the meantime, then, other social networks have reached and exceeded Twitter: Instagram (acquired by Facebook in 2012) has become bigger than Twitter in late 2014; Snapchat is evolving quickly and now is close to Twitter …
Last but certainly not last in order of importance, Twitter loses a lot of money. To be exact 578 million in 2014 and 645 in 2013. Other 299 million were lost in the first half of 2015.
All this makes me think of rumors for a rethink of global business model, that so does not work, or the possibility of a large acquisition of Twitter from those who have dollars in his pocket, which is the usual suspects vd Facebook or Google…! Would continue so the concentration of all global digital behemoths, costing even less obvious e-democracy!