Unlike most other businesses on Earth that live and die by their customers’ demands, social media services are caught trying to satisfy both their users and the people actually paying for it all: investors and advertisers.
Lordy, this is such a common business situation that Jean Tirole got the Nobel for analysing it.
And this is from a guy who spent 7 years at Snap…..
Has this guy never heard of television or radio?
Has he never seen a YouTube video?
I am disgusted at what “my” social media Thingie has become, but not so disgusted that I will sell my shares in it.
Instead, let me write an idealistic unicorn puff piece for my mates at an online rag I used to write for in the knowledge they will place it for old times’ sake.
A fine example of the 80% Musk booted out of Twitter. Best thing he ever did.
Wtf is unique about having to satisfy investors as well as customers? That’s like the definition of a business
(Now he there is an argument about double-sided markets where advertisors pay and not the end-user which is interesting but it doesn’t have anything to do with investors. (The double-sided model is not too common but also hardly not unique, it’s the model (not-fully subsidized) free-to-air TV has been adopting for a long time, as well as news papers etc)
“Wtf is unique about having to satisfy investors as well as customers?”
The concept is unique (unknown, even) to anyone working in the public sector…. 🙂
The Revenue model – Advertisers versus End-users: well quite, that truly is 101 wrt that sector.
@PF
For the public sector, replace “investors” with “workers”, and “customers” with nothing
Like any other business, social media has products and customers. As others have pointed out, the product is the users, the customers are the advertisers.