Musk Proposes to Buy Twitter for Original Price of $54.20 a Share

[Gnarls]

I never said I was privy as to why they chose a plaform. My comment was regarding choosing an alternate platform to redirect that spend to and that is quite easy to determine purely on their own past metrics together with any metrics compiled by their agency. I've discussed CPA ad nauseum now but if you have Platform A providing a CPA of $50 vs platform B of $25 you're getting a better return for your ad spend on platform B. Impressions and Clicks are more susceptible to manipulation and thus actual revenue paying customers are a better metric.

Then why are you making assumptions as if you were? Also, I'd much prefer a customer with a cpa of R10 who spends R100 at a time than a customer who's cpa is R1 but only spends R10 at a time.

As I said before, you have fun explaining a low cpa while you missed your revenue target.

 

[quovadis]

Hmmm, I'm yet to be convinced that these spam bots will pass the Turing test.

As in classic Turing or mechanisms such as CAPTCHA?

 

[quovadis]

Then why are you making assumptions as if you were? Also, I'd much prefer a customer with a cpa of R10 who spends R100 at a time than a customer who's cpa is R1 but only spends R10 at a time.

As I said before, you have fun explaining a low cpa while you missed your revenue target.

Once you acquire a customer you don't retarget them for advertising on platforms since you have acquired them as a customer - you market to them directly?! Social media platforms Most online advertising allow targetting based on any number of parameters including past response?

 

[Gnarls]

As in classic Turing or mechanisms such as CAPTCHA?

We're talking about spam bots and if a HUMAN can distinguish them from real people.

Once you acquire a customer you don't retarget them for advertising on platforms since you have acquired them as a customer - you market to them directly?! Social media platforms allow targetting based on any number of parameters including past response?

BS. All of it. No one mentioned remarketing. Stop trying to act as if you have a clue.

PSA: Never hire this MyBB expert as your digital marketing guy.

 

[quovadis]

We're talking about spam bots and if a HUMAN can distinguish them from real people.

Scroll up and look at Ponderers responses to me - they're not exactly contributing to the discourse other than basic comments. If you wanted to disrupt discussion on a particular topic just create 50 Ponderers - mission accomplished. You give people too much credit. You can sway opinion simply by entrenching beliefs by agreement through affirmation. If someone is speaking about illegal immigration just get bots to like and post url's to articles supporting a particular view - more likes, more engagement, higher amplification across a social media site.

BS. All of it. Stop trying to act as if you have a clue.

Sure guy because advertisers spend money advertising to the same people over and over and over again.

 

[Gnarls]

Scroll up and look at Ponderers responses to me - they're not exactly contributing to the discourse other than basic comments. If you wanted to disrupt discussion on a particular topic just create 50 Ponderers - mission accomplished. You give people too much credit. You can sway opinion simply by entrenching beliefs by agreement through affirmation. If someone is speaking about illegal immigration just get bots to like and post url's to articles supporting a particular view - more likes, more engagement, higher amplification across a social media site.

The topic is the Turing test and whether a human can distinguish a real person from a bot.

Sure guy because advertisers spend money advertising to the same people over and over and over again.

Dude, please lookup CLV before embarrassing yourself any further. Furthermore, I guess all that email marketing is free.

Dunning-Kruger in full effect here folks.

 

[Spizz]

Post from an American journalist. Note the retweet button is disabled.




And of course the result is predictable…

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Post from an American journalist. Note the retweet button is disabled.

View attachment 1416177


And of course the result is predictable…

View attachment 1416179

You cant retweet private accounts (which is given by the locked suitcase).

 

[R13...]

Post from an American journalist. Note the retweet button is disabled.

View attachment 1416177


And of course the result is predictable…

View attachment 1416179

Well you can't just insult the owner and expect to carry on your merry way, lol. Ironically the rightwing think freedom of speech means exactly that you should be able to do, but they'd probably, again hypocritically, support Musk.

 

[quovadis]

Net profit is the biggest determinant of sustainability. Or at least a break even. A business cannot be funded indefinitely (like is was) through capital raises or debt.

And yet there are a myriad of examples but I'll name two - Amazon & Tesla

 

[quovadis]

The topic is the Turing test and whether a human can distinguish a real person from a bot.

And yet Twitter and it's army of humans have failed for years.

Dude, please lookup CLV before embarrassing yourself any further. Furthermore, I guess all that email marketing is free.

Dunning-Kruger in full effect here folks.

Stop trolling.

 

[RonSwanson]

No-one here has offended me. It's easy to keep track of the knuckle draggers though. I mean here you are.

You get all twitchy when people state "Lekker ANC, BEE, Transformation and AA " because it's a reminder of how you were suckered. Why don't you just man up to your poor discernment and equally poor choices?

Yawn.

You really are a predictable curmudgeon.

Like you aren't? You're just an old libtard ANC voter that runs off to the UK when things go pear-shaped here, leaving everyone else to deal with the consequences of your poor voting choices. You are a coward, the very worst example of my gender.

 

[Pegasus]

Well the problematic ones are :

Simply automomous systems which respond or interact with particular content to distribute spam or sway opinion when certain subjects, keywords, interactions or sentiment is observed as part of an automated process. The good ones are typically indistinguishable from regular users and are created
to mimic the average user by mimicking initial behavior including generic poss, following others etc all via typical user interfaces.

A regular bot is basically a similar system but without nefarious activity and usually by official interfaces for such interaction.

And if you have a few million verified users who only follow other verified users will the bots have the same effect?

 

[Gnarls]

And yet Twitter and it's army of humans have failed for years.

But here you are arguing that they should just keep doing what they're doing.

Stop trolling.

How about you just answer the question. Did you look up CLV in marketing?

 

[Howdy]

And yet Twitter and it's army of humans have failed for years.

There was never a will at Twitter. Do not mistake that for impossibility.

Every once in a while, ITSec would get pissed off with the old Twitter anti-abuse, bash some heads in the background then launch a campaign. Here is an example of account recovery scammers being baited. What you don't see is the success, the accounts that responded and went kapoof.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512081623864340491

 

[quovadis]

And if you have a few million verified users who only follow other verified users will the bots have the same effect?

It depends from which perspective you're viewing the issue.

Firstly, it must be noted that from a platform perspective if Musk can reach LinkedIn's level of paying users (Just shy of 40%) that would be pretty impressive. Let's assume he does.

That still leaves 60% of users unpaid who are either a) A real person or b) A bot - as Twitter has struggled to differentiate these will be deprioritised from paying user discourse (or ignored by paying altogether).

From a perspective of influence - Over 200 million people is still fair game for bot operators (for whatever purpose or gain). Then since there'll be considerable overlap between those and let's guess 50% of paid users who still traverse the unpaid half of twitter it's not beyond imagination that plenty of this bot influence and spam will be amplified by paid users and their retweets or quotes/replies which then filter through to those only wanting to see content from paid users.

So thus from an individualistic perspective less effect but still not immune and from the platform perspective it's still arguable a great deal and the wild west. Also, being verified doesn't shield anyone from any content which is posted by a verified user and amplified by the masses who are unverified.

Lastly, since bot activity can be bought and paid for (as simple as likes, followers to spam) it doesn't exclude the possibility of future bots being blue subscribers (I don't believe the currently plans are actual verification) and thus getting the checkmark and that cost being passed on.

 

[Gnarls]

It depends from which perspective you're viewing the issue.

Firstly, it must be noted that from a platform perspective if Musk can reach LinkedIn's level of paying users (Just shy of 40%) that would be pretty impressive. Let's assume he does.

That still leaves 60% of users unpaid who are either a) A real person or b) A bot - as Twitter has struggled to differentiate these will be deprioritised from paying user discourse (or ignored by paying altogether).

From a perspective of influence - Over 200 million people is still fair game for bot operators (for whatever purpose or gain). Then since there'll be considerable overlap between those and let's guess 50% of paid users who still traverse the unpaid half of twitter it's not beyond imagination that plenty of this bot influence and spam will be amplified by paid users and their retweets or quotes/replies which then filter through to those only wanting to see content from paid users.

So thus from an individualistic perspective less effect but still not immune and from the platform perspective it's still arguable a great deal and the wild west. Also, being verified doesn't shield anyone from any content which is posted by a verified user and amplified by the masses who are unverified.

Lastly, since bot activity can be bought and paid for (as simple as likes, followers to spam) it doesn't exclude the possibility of future bots being blue subscribers (I don't believe the currently plans are actual verification) and thus getting the checkmark and that cost being passed on.

From a perspective of sense, this makes none.

 

[quovadis]

But here you are arguing that they should just keep doing what they're doing.

Clarity please - I'm arguing that Twitter?? should keep doing what exactly?

How about you just answer the question. Did you look up CLV in marketing?

In online marketing cost per acquisition is arguably the most important metric in terms of understanding the effectiveness and revenue impact of a specific campaign. Moving on since we're totally off-topic now.

 

[quovadis]

From a perspective of sense, this makes none.

It's ok if it doesn't make sense to you.

 

[greg0205]

Can't stop laughing... Phony Stark's plan to sell blue checkmarks has a wrinkle.

Folks, Valerie Bertinelli, or rather, verified Elon Musk.



... and here's what that looks like in practice on twitter dot com




Perfection.