Brand recognition is monetizable when you can apply it to other products. People like Apple computers; plop the logo on a phone and they’ll be predisposed to buy an Apple phone.
But Twitter doesn’t sell anything else. There aren’t going to be any Twitter-branded products that try to monetize the brand. So what’s the value of the brand lost by changing the name to “X”?
I would guess the ad revenue. Twitter sells ads. Businesses are probably less likely to advertise on a rebranded platform that implemented so many controversial changes that advertising on it is now not only hitting a much smaller target group (since people left) but is also associated negatively, which might lead to losing even more clients. It is like a local organic fair trade food brand being associated with nestle. This will probably not lead to an increase in sales but much the opposite.
Twitter isn’t losing users, it’s gaining them. They may be losing advertisers but “branding” doesn’t really have anything to do with that. Advertisers go where the eyeballs are, brands are otherwise meaningless to them.
This is just misinformation, Linda Yaccarino confirmed that Twitter is down from 140 million daily users at the end of 2022 to 121 million daily users now.
Tweet being used ubiquitously was profitable the same way xerox being used as a verb to mean “scan and copy” was profitable. Instead of looking at xerox machines first, in this case, people would look to twitter (and the ads on the site, clicked or not) first when it came to social media information flow.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing that anyone uses only one social media, but it was a reality. Twitter has moved down to only about 8% market share from a dominant position. It does NOT command the audience it once did, and advertisers are moving away from it for more reasons than the literal antisemitism and general ignorance spouted by the new owner. It’s a multitude of factors dragging it down in overall value, but deleting brand recognition by associating the site with the multiple previous failed X projects by the same guy who fucked up the previous ones? Not priceless.
I hate to tell you this, but X makes quarterly business reports like every other company. You are making up a value basis that is polluted by freely given verification. You can see how many millions in revenue they lose quarterly. Their new plan is CLEARLY not working, there’s literal evidence.
Wtf does brand recognition have anything to do with T-Shirts?
Brand recognition is monetizable when you can apply it to other products. People like Apple computers; plop the logo on a phone and they’ll be predisposed to buy an Apple phone.
But Twitter doesn’t sell anything else. There aren’t going to be any Twitter-branded products that try to monetize the brand. So what’s the value of the brand lost by changing the name to “X”?
I would guess the ad revenue. Twitter sells ads. Businesses are probably less likely to advertise on a rebranded platform that implemented so many controversial changes that advertising on it is now not only hitting a much smaller target group (since people left) but is also associated negatively, which might lead to losing even more clients. It is like a local organic fair trade food brand being associated with nestle. This will probably not lead to an increase in sales but much the opposite.
Twitter isn’t losing users, it’s gaining them. They may be losing advertisers but “branding” doesn’t really have anything to do with that. Advertisers go where the eyeballs are, brands are otherwise meaningless to them.
[citation needed]
According to every source I can find X/Twitter has lost around 32 million users and counting since the rebrand.
Yeah but it’s gained more than that. So, on net, it’s gaining users.
This is just misinformation, Linda Yaccarino confirmed that Twitter is down from 140 million daily users at the end of 2022 to 121 million daily users now.
why are you refusing to accept you are wrong?
I’m not.
Is this stupid sack of self sucking anal fuck juice you, mate?
Yup! If you fled Ukraine rather than defending it, you’re a coward. Hope that helps!
Not if you’re the invading force
Removed by mod
Change Russian to Jew and maybe you will see the problem with that statement.
Brands have tons of relevance beyond physical products.
deleted by creator
Tweet being used ubiquitously was profitable the same way xerox being used as a verb to mean “scan and copy” was profitable. Instead of looking at xerox machines first, in this case, people would look to twitter (and the ads on the site, clicked or not) first when it came to social media information flow.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing that anyone uses only one social media, but it was a reality. Twitter has moved down to only about 8% market share from a dominant position. It does NOT command the audience it once did, and advertisers are moving away from it for more reasons than the literal antisemitism and general ignorance spouted by the new owner. It’s a multitude of factors dragging it down in overall value, but deleting brand recognition by associating the site with the multiple previous failed X projects by the same guy who fucked up the previous ones? Not priceless.
deleted by creator
I hate to tell you this, but X makes quarterly business reports like every other company. You are making up a value basis that is polluted by freely given verification. You can see how many millions in revenue they lose quarterly. Their new plan is CLEARLY not working, there’s literal evidence.
You know all those links and buttons and toolbars and popups on websites that say share on Twitter with the Twitter logo? That’s the brand.