X may lose up to $75 mln by year-end on advertiser exodus

That’s not as much as I would’ve hoped

Don't forget how recently he really started driving away the advertisers and how close we are to the end of the year. I see it as a very hopeful start.
$75m in 5 weeks. That’s a run rate of $780m per year. That is not a small chunk of revenue.
75 bucks is the minimum though. It could be like... 37 billion.
- X is already worth less than half of buying price. And this is income loss, not net worth. Which will eventually lead to the later or if not to bankruptcy.
- I don't think Twitter ever even had ad revenue that high right?
Don't worry, the company is now worth less than half of what he paid for it and his Tesla stocks are hemorrhaging value too 🙂

Does anyone else pick up on the subtle humor of X being the means by which illiterate people can put pen to paper and "have their say"

I doubt this is lost on Elon, as much of Africa was sold off to colonisers on treaties signed with an X.
- K you better not have just unearthed the REAL genesis and hidden meaning behind all this X bullshit...👆
  Edit: sort of makes some sick kinda sense given his autocrat state-level investors... :/

Time to consider Xitter a hate group and ban them.

Excellent, let's keep that momentum going.

we can beat that

...and unless you're Elon, this is a problem why?

Why is this problematic for Elon? Has he ever explicitly conceded he needs X to be profitable? Isn't it sufficient and necessary enough in the eyes of his investors to simply neuter it?
- He's said that he WANTS it to be profitable and as a clinical narcissist billionaire, he doesn't cope well with not getting what he wants.
  On a more practical level, the cesspit it's become has increased scrutiny on his other companies and the main one, Tesla, is decidedly NOT weathering that well.
  All in all, he's lost over a third, maybe even as much as HALF of his still absurdly huge dragon's hoard of wealth since he took over Twitter.
- Much of his wealth is held in shares of his publicly traded companies. If investors lose faith in his ability to manage and grow one company it could (and seemingly has) affect the value of all companies he's involved with, directly decreasing his net worth. Making Twitter profitable would have gone a long way in demonstrating his ability to run a company, but he has done the opposite.
  But technically no, I guess he doesn't need Twitter to turn a profit. He could just watch it all burn.
Elon is probably one of the only people in the world to whom this is not too worrisome.

Let's be fair, there's also been a rise in CSAM, too, not just hate speech.

Well of course there's more CSAM. They have to do something to attract more conservatives.
I've been on the internet since the 90s, BBS services before that. Thankfully I've never stumbled upon anything remotely close to CSAM all this time. To think that I could open up a twitter thread linked from a news story and be subjected to it is repugnant.
- Especially since there are services like Thorne that would help you manage it. Also this is a direct result of gutting trust and safety teams.

It's amazing how you can spend 44 billion dollars and not lose credibility over it.

Oh wait

Just don't have any credibility to begin with ez
I just hope he doesn't take Signal down with him 🥶

I love seeing some good news... really lifts my spirits.

He really made a bad deal on that website. Monetarily anyway.

Sure, but at the end of the day, does it really matter? It's like made up numbers that never run out. He's still set for life, no real consequence. He feels this less than someone who misses a car payment one month.
- That's the really crazy thing. With the market value crash of Twitter he lost more money than the GDP of a small country. Yet, it practically makes no difference to him.
How much of his own money did he really lose though? Didn’t he have a bunch of people throw in with him?
- Around $22Bn, that's how much he had to sell on Tesla stock. The other half was a loan from several banks and investors that got saddled to Twitter itself. These things are public, that's how we know most of the loan money came from the Saudi crown.
Yeah, he probably wanted it in order to influence the election, but the way things are going it might but be around for that. Not to mention, Twitter isn't really used by real people, it's basically just all journalists circle jerking.
Seems pretty obvious, right? Someone on Lemmy once argued, he did it to avoid taxes. Failed to explain how this is profitable in the end though.
- I remember reading an article speculating that his strategy was to bring down twitter because it was a left leaning platform, and that would appease the Saudis, or something like that. Seemed pretty far fetched. I reckon he made an ego driven power play without thinking it through and it is going about as well as anybody expected. No shenanigans, no strategy, just a more publically exposed failure than his previous business failures.

Is Twitter not part of the three comma club anymore?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Nov 24 (Reuters) - Elon Musk-owned social media company X could lose as much as $75 million in advertising revenue by the end of the year as dozens of major brands pause their marketing campaigns, the New York Times reported on Friday.

Musk backing an antisemitic post on the platform last week has led several companies including Walt Disney (DIS.N) and Warner Bros Discovery (WBD.O) to pause their advertisements on the site formerly called Twitter.

X has struck back and sued media watchdog group Media Matters, alleging the organization defamed the platform with a report that said ads for major brands including Apple and Oracle had appeared next to posts touting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.

X said on Friday $11 million in revenue was at risk and the exact figure fluctuated as some advertisers returned to the platform and others increased spending, according to the report.

Advertisers have fled X since Musk bought it in October 2022 and reduced content moderation, resulting in a sharp rise in hate speech on the site, according to civil rights groups.

The platform's U.S. ad revenue has declined at least 55% year-over-year each month since Musk's takeover, Reuters previously reported.

The original article contains 255 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 22%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

X was sold recently for $44 billion. $75 million is 0.17% of that. I'm sure X is quaking in its boots.

It wasn't worth $44 billion when he bought it. That's why he tried desperately to back out. The reason the company is in such a dire financial situation is specifically because it was bought at that price and now pays debt service far disproportionate to its actual worth.
You're also confusing company valuation with operating revenue. $44 billion isn't how much cash they have on hand and $75 million doesn't get subtracted from that, so expressing that percentage makes no sense. One number isn't a percent of the other.
Twitter's ad revenue is already down more than 50% since the takeover and this is $75 million more of lost revenue on top of that. The company was maybe on a path to profitability at full advertising revenue and without the debt service, but now it is burning cash even as revenues tank.
They have a billion of loan payments due each year. In order to pay that, someone has to come up with cash. Having a business that actually generates a profit would be the ideal way to do that.
- My point is that $75 million isn't a significant amount either way at the scale that X is operating on.
Part of that money was paid by X itself (as debt), devaluing it in that process.