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

[Gnarls]

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

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.

Dude, you are talking nonsense as evidenced here. And stop with this moving on nonsense. It is the very definition of trolling.

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.

Please answer this scenario before talking smack about moving on.

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

Answer the question troll.

Please note this guy would stop advertising to a customer after they've bought a car because hey, they're already a customer and therefore he'd just assume they're going to buy a car from him again.

 

[quovadis]

Perfection.

I've always thought the verification of the twitter handle instead of the profile name was a little silly.

 

[greg0205]

I've always thought the verification of the twitter handle instead of the profile name was a little silly.

The point of verification, until now, has been to authenticate the identity of the user, not the handle... Folks change their handles all the time.

 

[vigras rojara]

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?


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.

And yet you still live in the shithole while praising Orania. Why don't you get rid of the lekker BEE and move to the paradise?

You'd certainly qualify for residence and you could stop whining then.

 

[Pegasus]

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.

So for the first half of your reply, I am sure that you can work out that the number of bots will be reduced if they have no or little effect on verified users. So the number of bots or the effect of them will be reduced having more verified users. This is the question we were trying to answer.

You do raise some other interesting points though, but not part of the original issue.

 

[rietrot]

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

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

View attachment 1416191

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

View attachment 1416193


Perfection.

I don't get the joke. Your going to make someone a bit excited because "Elon Musk" retweeted them and then it's not the real Elon, obvious when you view the account?

This is genius. Twitter is now completely destroyed.

 

[greg0205]

I don't get the joke. Your going to make someone a bit excited because "Elon Musk" retweeted them and then it's not the real Elon, obvious when you view the account?

This is genius. Twitter is now completely destroyed.

She's retweeting Democrats, riettie, so right now it looks like Elon's endorsing a bunch of them right before Tuesday.

Say, aren't you conservatives supposed to be getting better at comedy and aren't we liberals supposed to be terrified?

 

[R13...]

The point of verification, until now, has been to authenticate the identity of the user, not the handle... Folks change their handles all the time.

Has that changed? Yeah, I see the tweets in your screen print but wonder if this is different than before the takeover. Verification was brought about to prevent impersonation among other issues.

 

[greg0205]

Has that changed? Yeah, I see the tweets in your screen print but wonder if this is different than before the takeover. Verification was brought about to prevent impersonation among other issues.

That's the whole point...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588969800675782656

 

[quovadis]

Dude, you are talking nonsense as evidenced here. And stop with this moving on nonsense. It is the very definition of trolling.

Agree to disagree.

Please answer this scenario before talking smack about moving on.

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.

The cost per acquisition is measured per campaign or across all campaigns. If you acquire 500 customers for a total ad spend on a campaign on twitter of $10,000 then $10000/500 = CPA of $20. Once acquired you can then market directly to your customers for further sales.

Answer the question troll.

Please note this guy would stop advertising to a customer after they've bought a car because hey, they're already a customer and therefore he'd just assume they're going to buy a car from him again.

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm saying you wouldn't typically use a social media marketing campaign to target your existing customers - You'd market directly. Social media ads typically allow quite advanced targetting including past interactions with advertisers...

 

[quovadis]

The point of verification, until now, has been to authenticate the identity of the user, not the handle... Folks change their handles all the time.

Umm Elon Musk = Name, @Wolfiesmom = Handle/Username

I've seen a few users change their name retaining the checkmark. Changing the handle/username = reapply.

 

[Pegasus]

She's retweeting Democrats, riettie, so right now it looks like Elon's endorsing a bunch of them right before Tuesday.

Say, aren't you conservatives supposed to be getting better at comedy and aren't we liberals supposed to be terrified?

Ok. Thanks for explaining the joke.

Voting for democrats makes you like an idiot, everyone thinks Elon is an idiot now.
Haha

Now she is going to have to switch back to her own name so her followers can see who she supports.

Haha

So funny.

Ha

 

[RedViking]

They should still have a verification process, but seeing that it comes at a cost they can permanently employ people to just do verifications and faster.

 

[quovadis]

So for the first half of your reply, I am sure that you can work out that the number of bots will be reduced if they have no or little effect on verified users. So the number of bots or the effect of them will be reduced having more verified users. This is the question we were trying to answer.

You do raise some other interesting points though, but not part of the original issue.

If we go back to the original issue then on bots decreasing. The bots are still there. They're just deprioritised along with unpaid users unless the verified user actively opts to filter verified only users. (This is available as an unpaid filter anyway).

So John Doe forks over $8 - he is now verified. If he views his favourite twitter user and the latest tweet & there are 3 replies from a verified user, a bot and an unverified user the order will be verified user and then bot/unverified chronologically. Obviously the more verified users in the replies the further down the unverified users and bots will be but that's not decreasing bots.

 

[Pegasus]

If we go back to the original issue then on bots decreasing. The bots are still there. They're just deprioritised along with unpaid users unless the verified user actively opts to filter verified only users. (This is available as an unpaid filter anyway).

So John Doe forks over $8 - he is now verified. If he views his favourite twitter user and the latest tweet & there are 3 replies from a verified user, a bot and an unverified user the order will be verified user and then bot/unverified chronologically. Obviously the more verified users in the replies the further down the unverified users and bots will be but that's not decreasing bots.

The bots become less effective and start becoming pointless creating. What’s the point of creating them if they don’t affect your target. Also easier to find and eliminate.

 

[quovadis]

They should still have a verification process, but seeing that it comes at a cost they can permanently employ people to just do verifications and faster.

There have been conflicting media reports that identity verification may not be necessary to get the check mark simply subscription. This'll be clarified I'm sure.

 

[quovadis]

The bots become less effective and start becoming pointless creating. What’s the point of creating them if they don’t affect your target. Also easier to find and eliminate.

My gut is that a vast many twitter users (at least hundreds of millions) will still be unpaid and they still will be interacting and susceptible in the same way as always. The average tweet engagement for Joe Public (even when verified) is very low thus, even with deprioritisation, they're still at high risk of exposure to unpaid/bots.

 

[Pegasus]

My gut is that a vast many twitter users (at least hundreds of millions) will still be unpaid and they still will be interacting and susceptible in the same way as always. The average tweet engagement for Joe Public (even when verified) is very low thus, even with deprioritisation, they're still at high risk of exposure to unpaid/bots.

Your gut hates Elon Musk and you want him to fail, hence your negative attitude.

 

[quovadis]

Your gut hates Elon Musk and you want him to fail, hence your negative attitude.

Wow. Discussing the pitfalls of a strategy isn't hate.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589019082132967425