[flyinglizard]

Arguably, Twitter is worth more to someone (likely an old school media giant) as a strategic platform than it's worth as a business. Twitter has immense influence that it's unable to monetize. Yes, it generates revenue, but that's true of nearly business with that large of a user base; but the real influence of Twitter as a cross-connnect between all layers of society and as a tool for creating trends isn't really tapped into.

[goseeastarwar]

You may be correct, but you're talking about two billion dollars as if it's not a lot of money. I don't have a dog in this fight, but the twitter business model is actually quite impressive as long as you don't compare it to facebook.

[flyinglizard]

I'm not dismissing the $2bn revenue at all - but the buyer will get that and the strategic leverage from the platform.

[rhizome]

In your estimation, which old school media giant(s) could successfully increase Twitter's value? Could they do it without relying solely on old-school strategies copied from the radio, TV, and print advertising they already know how to do?

[flyinglizard]

I admit such strategies have failed more often than succeeded. It's difficult to create "organic synergy" without alienating users (who tend to be suspicious of such mergers in the first place). But Twitter has unique power at news breaking and creating direct dialogue around events, and it's surely worth a premium above the bare financials. The value created is not by making Twitter better, but leveraging it's abilities to the benefit of the buyer. What's a company worth as a stand alone entity and what's it worth as part of a greater organization are two different things. I could totally see someone like Newscorp buying them.

[type0]

> I could totally see someone like Newscorp buying them.

I do too, but I don't see any bright future for Twitter and its users in this case.

[rhizome]

And due to almost-certain attrition it wouldn't necessarily result in higher revenues. Maybe per-user, but.