Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by daed 1416 days ago
One point not mentioned (and I’m just paraphrasing Levine from Money Stuff here):

It’s crazy because it would probably be BETTER if you had more bots. Then you could say that your revenue per user was higher and you could argue that you had more room for growth. So, if anything, lying and OVERestimating the bot count would help your valuation more.
1 comments
Ferret7446 1416 days ago
Not really, because the revenue comes from ads not users. Twitter makes profit from ad buyers thinking they are reaching many users. The "revenue per user was higher" you mention is actually "cost per ad impression" and ad buyers want that to be low.
link
Sebb767 1416 days ago
Ad buyers want this to be lower, but investors would love for this to be higher. I think that's what the parent was aiming at.
link