The New York Times<\/em><\/a> reveals that Twitter\u2019s 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. For a company that relies on advertising for up to 90 percent of its revenue, this is a precipitous drop and a real concern.<\/p>\nAt a Twitter Space audio event, Elon Musk said advertisers have put \u201cextreme pressure\u201d on the company, leading \u201chalf our advertising\u201d to disappear. \u201cThey are trying to drive Twitter bankrupt,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
But why would marketers with goods and services in need of promotion want Twitter to disappear? They wouldn’t. Here’s a better question: Why would Twitter’s new proprietor seek to externalize blame?<\/p>\n
It may have something to do with his personality. Or it could be that Twitter\u2019s valuation has plunged since the company was acquired last year. Last week, the mutual funds giant Fidelity, which owns shares in Twitter, valued the company at $15 billion. If Fidelity’s numbers are correct, Twitter is worth $29 billion fewer dollars than it was last year when Musk bought the company for $44B.<\/p>\n
Tweet, tweet. This is an extraordinary “fail harder” moment.<\/strong><\/p>\nAlso, help me out here…when it’s lost, where exactly does $29 billion go?<\/em><\/p>\nOn the surface, Twitter is the same company it was before the acquisition. Its core offerings haven’t changed. What changed is public perception. Sure, Twitter has a lion’s share of operational challenges\u2014also brought about by its new leader\u2014but none of them are costing the company the sort of monumental losses that its weakened reputation is responsible for.<\/p>\n
Twitter’s brand reputation is worse than tarnished. It’s been shat upon and discarded. To the tune of $29B. If we were not constantly distracted by all the AI-related bullshit that “The Valley” is cramming up our collective asses, this news might even astound us.<\/p>\n