Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
Twitter Businesses

Twitter Is 'Toast' and the Stock Is Not Even Worth $10, Says Analyst (cnbc.com) 284

Twitter is "toast" as a company and the stock is not even worth $10, according to a research note published Tuesday, following the departure of another top executive at the social media service. From a report on CNBC: The microblogging platform's chief technology officer, Adam Messinger, tweeted that he would leave the company and "take some time off", while Josh McFarland, vice president of product at Twitter, also said he was exiting the company. Both executives announced their departure on Tuesday. Meanwhile, last month, Adam Bain stepped down as chief operating officer last month to be replaced by chief financial officer Anthony Noto, who has yet to be replaced. Twitter has also lost leaders from business development, media and commerce, media partnerships, human resources, and engineering this year. The departures prompted Trip Chowdhry, the managing director of equity research at Global Equities Research, and a noted "uber-bear" on tech stocks, to issue a note on Tuesday claiming Twitter is "toast" and "not even a $10 stock." "Many investors were foolishly building (an) investment thesis based on complete stupidity," Chowdhry wrote. The analyst said that Twitter's data quality is "horrible". Chowdhry said that many pollsters used Twitter data to predict a Hillary Clinton win in the U.S. election but the fact that Donald Trump won shows that data quality is poor. One reason for this is too many fake users on the platform, Chowdhry claims.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Is 'Toast' and the Stock Is Not Even Worth $10, Says Analyst

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:06PM (#53531449)

    Let us return to the times when a stock's value depended on the P/E ratio and not the mythical confidence fairy.

    • by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Stop it. Next thing you know, an AC will suggest that companies pay dividends again.
    • by jbeach ( 852844 )
      That would mean that our economy wouldn't be the pot in a high-stakes poker game! Why do you hate our freedom, Hitler? /s
  • Fleeing rats (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jbmartin6 ( 1232050 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:06PM (#53531453)
    I have to agree with Trip Chowdhry on this. In my experience you don't see that many high level folks leaving a company if all is well.
  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:09PM (#53531497)
    Sure, Twitter is most notable failure. Other social media is not categorically different and stock values are equally divorced from reality.
    • by TWX ( 665546 )
      Twitter relies on 140 character messages. How are you supposed to monetize the store and forward of 140 character messages?
    • by ELCouz ( 1338259 )
      Social media bubble bursted time long ago...
      Remember MySpace, digg, orkut, Google+?
    • Twitter has been dying for years though; Trump ironically brought them back into the limelite, but they still could not profit from it.

      The Unicorns will be next though, not Facebook.
  • by urbanriot ( 924981 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:14PM (#53531549)
    It's been clear to a number of us that Twitter's primary users are more on the social side of the spectrum, lean more to the left, are engaged more in arts and all that, but all of the news snippets over the past year or so seem to come out after the company articulated publicly that they are more or less an SJW platform, that they're going to selectively ban questionable comments under the guise of anti-racism, etc., etc.

    Maybe I'm wrong but the timelines literally suggest that Twitter's failure was its political alignment rather than providing a neutral grounds for socializing.
    • by mujadaddy ( 1238164 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:20PM (#53531595)
      I think the unprofitable nature of the thing is what is not "a viable business," identity politics or no.
    • by sinij ( 911942 )
      While rampant SJWing certainly didn't help, Twitter sans SJW is still not viable.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      It's been clear to a number of us that Twitter's primary users are more on the social side of the spectrum, lean more to the left, are engaged more in arts and all that, but all of the news snippets over the past year or so seem to come out after the company articulated publicly that they are more or less an SJW platform, that they're going to selectively ban questionable comments under the guise of anti-racism, etc., etc. Maybe I'm wrong but the timelines literally suggest that Twitter's failure was its political alignment rather than providing a neutral grounds for socializing.

      Considering that SJW is the new Jewish conspiracy, communist agenda, liberal media, Muslim menace, boogie man, and does not exist as such, I have to believe that your ideas are incorrect.

    • by jbeach ( 852844 )
      I think it's 100% due to the fact that they never even developed a solid plan to *one day* have money.

      If ads didn't work for Facebook, they could still charge users $3 a year and be solvent. Reddit is scraping by with subscriptions and gifted "gold". Maybe if Twitter tried $.025 a year they'd be able to stay up.
  • Good (Score:2, Funny)

    by vvaduva ( 859950 )

    Good...the cesspool of political correctness is blowing up in their faces

    • by Jodka ( 520060 )

      Good...the cesspool of political correctness is blowing up in their faces

      While I don't agree with political correctness either (and do agree with what John Cleese says on the subject [youtube.com]) , the Twitter problem is more general than that: Twitter's decision to police speech on their platform at all was the idiot move there. While their customers do reasonably want filters, those customers should be able to collectively create and individually select those filters, or none at all. Consider in comparison the Slashdot rating system: it is primitive and flawed, but its is the right k

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Consider in comparison the Slashdot rating system: it is primitive and flawed, but its is the right kind of approach and more-or-less sort of works to permit free speech while de-emphasizing crap.

        This argument would be a lot stronger if the Slashdot comment sections weren't mostly nonsensical circular arguments and insistence that imaginary "SJW"s were at the root of all the world's ills. You have people in the comments of this very article claiming that "political correctness" is to blame for Twitter's situation (a stock price which, let's remember, means a valuation of roughly $7,000,000,000; that's a problem I'd love to have), with no understanding of how Twitter's business model works (or doesn'

  • Lol!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:25PM (#53531641)

    The analyst said that Twitter's data quality is "horrible".

    Using "twitter" and "data" and "quality" in the same sentence made me laugh.

  • by butchersong ( 1222796 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:28PM (#53531673)
    I've tried several Twitter alternatives some in beta some not and unfortunately, most of the things I dislike about Twitter I dislike about them as well. You can join a network that has a strong anti censorship stance and this seems like progress but then you end up with almost unending amounts of hate and vitriol in excess even of Twitter. Even on platforms populated by people on my side of the political isle (libertarian republican types)... it is just unpleasant and unhealthy and gets old fast. I don't know how you take a global broadcast like platform and make it into something palatable.
  • by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:31PM (#53531725) Homepage Journal

    Virtually everyone predicted a big Hillary win and virtually everyone was wrong.

    I have a theory about that.

    There was a palpable Anti-Trump PC thing happening. Anything that could possibly be interpreted as a Pro-Trump or Anti-Hillary statement could have ended in an online dogpile of people shouting "Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Transphobic, Islamophobic, Xenophobic" so people kept their thoughts to themselves until they got to the one place where they could express themselves without external pressure, the voting booth.

    You can't fault Twitter for misreading the tea leaves just like pretty much everyone else.

    • Most of the media and "analysts" outside of Washington are in NY and Cali. Given that Trump won the popular vote in the US by 3 million if you exclude those two states, it is easy to see how such a skewed view of the electorate could come about.
    • Saying Twitter data are poor is misleading. Twitter would render a popular vote if all tweets were taken in aggregate, and in that case, it would have been correct. Now if they are blocking by state and got it wrong, it's still more of a function of who uses Twitter.

  • Statistical analysis by unbiased machine learning systems, derived via data on social media platforms including Twitter, that Trump would win. The difference between the correct and wrong predictive systems is that one was just left-wing echo chambers regurgitating Hillary propaganda, the other was a genuine unbiased prediction engine. All these departure protests are is more left-wing bullying to manipulate social media into promoting their bull crap.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28... [cnbc.com]

  • I suspect that many twitterers were just repeating what they were hearing on MSM.

    Is MSM also toast?

  • This is what happens when you arbitrarily ban people because you don't like them.

    It spawned gab.ai. Now they hint that they might ban Trump. Which means he would go to gab and take a lot of his 10million folowers with him.

  • by hipp5 ( 1635263 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:48PM (#53531933)

    I say this as a non-user, so I acknowledge that I might be ignorant on the subject. But...

    I never understood how/why Twitter (or really any messaging platform/app) is a business. I mean, tweeting does actually seem like a useful tool for certain communication needs, but I don't understand why it's handled through a single service. Why isn't the tweet simply a protocol, like email? People would then just build different clients/apps/platforms that utilize that protocol, just like we do with email.

    • by grumpy_old_grandpa ( 2634187 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @03:53PM (#53532547)

      In "The Internet Is Not the Answer" by Andrew Keen *, he points to some of the problems with today's web services: As opposed to the Internet's golden days of public standards and open protocols, today they are mostly centralized proprietary "winner takes all".

      And the reason is simple: When Paul Baran, Bob Taylor, Bob Kahn, Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, et.al. invented their respective contributions, they were often government employees and as such not seeking or able to pursue monetary gains based on their inventions, or vehemently opposed to do so. They also understood that their protocols had to be public and open in order to be widely adopted.

      In today's Internet economy, the goal is not universal standards or federated networks (e.g. email, PSTN), but rather reaching critical mass in walled gardens. If you can show you have amassed enough users, your company gets valued billions. IPO, vest, rinse and repeat. So if there was a public social network protocol, you could jump ship, just as you can with a domain and email today. That would not be in th interest of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp . Much better ride the curve till the next bust.

      *) Skip the book; it's a long rant, a gets a bit dull, even if Keen is a good writer.

    • I think one of the differences between, say, twitter and email is that twitter's thing is that it's the one place where everything lives. As in, everyone can see Trump's tweets, you don't have to find the particular server that houses Trump's tweets. Email is decentralized - my email server houses my emails but it doesn't house yours. The protocols of email make it possible for email from your server to get to my server but while I can search my email, I can't search yours. With twitter though, I can search
      • Usenet is a decentralized protocol and posts are cooperatively replicated among participating servers. I don't see why Twitter couldn't do the same thing.
    • The previous poster, "hipp5", may not be a Twitter user, but it sounds to me like he understands it better than most regular Twitter users do!

      From the first day the service was announced, a lot of us "long timers" in computers and I.T. were left scratching our heads, wondering what the point was in the entire thing? I mean, Twitter was essentially nothing more than yet *another* IM client of sorts, except with arbitrarily short limits on the length of messages. I grant that there's a certain amount of value

      • by Mandrel ( 765308 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @05:20PM (#53533115)

        From the first day the service was announced, a lot of us "long timers" in computers and I.T. were left scratching our heads, wondering what the point was in the entire thing? I mean, Twitter was essentially nothing more than yet *another* IM client of sorts, except with arbitrarily short limits on the length of messages.

        Twitter is more than just another IM client. They invented, or at least brought to mainstream popularity, the concepts of the follow and the timeline, which were imitated by Facebook, Instagram, and a number of blogging platforms. Companies and users love the follow, because it realises the ancient mindshare goal of finely-controlled (voluntary) content push, without the clunkiness of channels and email notifications. Once you have permission to push, revenue options open up.

        Twitter is not exploiting this power well. They could be earning a cut of the sales made, valuable insights gained, and joy discovered when the information channeled through their platform helps someone choose a product, make a decision, or find something entertaining. I'm not talking about ads and affiliate links.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @03:00PM (#53532059)
    stupid TFA didn't even mention the VALUATION (who cares about the price of a single share?)...should be around $7.1B at $10/share.
  • by hodet ( 620484 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @03:17PM (#53532203)

    I have messed around with data mining tweets for sporting events and no matter how I sliced and diced the info it is hard to get anything of value. A high profile event like the SuperBowl will generate tens of thousands of tweets in a 2 hour span. After you filter out all the words like "the", "it", "shit" and "fuck" etc etc etc its just pile of steaming crap. It was fun to fool around with but it was hard to gauge anything from it. Only 1 to 2% of users actually share their geo coordinates. The location field is a mess of "NEW YORK", "NYC", "big apple" and that sort of thing. You could clearly see increased spikes after big plays...but no shit...people are excited so the frequency chart spikes after a touchdown...do tell. I have tried using it to gauge sentiment in my home town on various issues....absolutely worthless.. although some of that might be just me as well.

    • I agree, having tried this a bit there is not much usefulness to what Twitter offers for research or data mining. But, then again, it's not intended to be a research tool. What it is intended to be, I suppose, as with all for-profit businesses, is a money-making machine. It seems to not do very well in that regard either.

      Maybe if there is value to it as a service, it needs to go the non-profit route like Wikipedia?
      • by hodet ( 620484 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @04:34PM (#53532851)

        I'm not even sure it has value as a service. Have you ever tried to engage meaningfully on twitter? It's a good platform for celebs to push their endorsements, political candidates to spout their dogma and all matter of people trying to become famous and important by chasing followers, but meaningful interaction is almost nil. Everyone talks but nobody listens. A social network should be social, and twitter really isn't. The most popular only send tweets and don't really respond. In many cases they are paying others to actually do it for them.

  • Keep whining old guys.

    Buying opportunity IMHO

  • by hackel ( 10452 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @03:52PM (#53532539) Journal

    I'm so ready for Twiiter to die. The whole concept-—reducing all content to 140 character sound bytes suitable for a child's consumption, is insulting and doing real damage to the world and people's ability to communicate. It almost single-handedly allowed the election of a tyrant to the highest office in the world. Its users need to learn how to write in *complete paragraphs*, with spacing, punctuation, and everything else that makes language worth using in the first place.

  • He has it backwards. The pollsters did not use Twitter data to predict that Hillary would win. They predicted that Hillary would win and then used Twitter data to make it look like it was something other than just wishful thinking on their part. Anybody who predicted that Hillary would win by a wide margin (and many people did) were basing it on wishful thinking. All of the REAL data before the election indicated a close election. Even the Electoral College blowout which Trump got was the result of small le
  • The article linked is just click bait.

    The analyst said that Twitter's data quality is "horrible". Chowdhry said that many pollsters used Twitter data to predict a Hillary Clinton win in the U.S. election but the fact that Donald Trump won shows that data quality is poor. One reason for this is too many fake users on the platform, Chowdhry claims.

    Twitter has had issues with monetization, but the idea that the platform is somehow flawed because some idiot used it as a source polling is nuts. You can't determine an election from reading tweets.

    Twitter differentiated itself from other social sites by embracing simplicity and mobile. The simplicity of twitter has also hurt it, because it keeps failing at expanding the platform beyond tweets making it a poor growth stock since its user growth has stagnated.

The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force. - Darth Vader

Working...