CEO Linda Yaccarino and others at X (formerly Twitter) have repeatedly tried to boast that advertisers are returning to the platform, but a new Media Matters analysis tells a different story: Since Elon Musk took over the company, it has earned 42% less ad revenue and had 28% fewer individual monthly advertisers than before his leadership began. Additionally, in the 12 weeks of Yaccarino’s tenure as CEO, the majority of the company’s top 100 advertisers pre-Musk spent a fraction of what they did in the 12 weeks prior to Musk’s acquisition. For example, Visa — which Yaccarino cited as an example of a “returning” advertiser — has spent just $10 in the past 12 weeks, compared to roughly $77,500 in the 12 weeks before Musk bought Twitter.
Are there any legal implications when knowingly lying about the profitability of a privately held company like X?
She’s not lying, she’s just not saying the whole truth. It’s totally true advertisers are returning.
They’re returning at a steep discount.
Plus some are leaving faster then others are returning.
deleted by creator
Unlikely. There aren’t any shareholders to screw over and it doesn’t look like Musk has any desire to sell Twitter at the moment (I refuse to call it X).
Jack Dorsey, a clutch of Saudis, and at least one bank have multiple billions of dollars still invested. When I read that Dorsey was leaving a bit over a billion on the table by not cashing out at $54.20. I assumed that he had done a back room deal where Musk agreed to redeem Dorsey’s shares at $54.20 no matter the current valuation, and that recently came out as being the case. I assume he had to make a similar agreement with the Saudis, but the bank has already marked down their investment by about 70%.
Still, Musk remains the most fucked since he’s not only on the hook for the $1B per year interest payments but also is still the largest single investor. I suspect between hemorrhaging money, guaranteed buy backs, and loss of value versus TSLA or whatever else he used for collateral that he’s going to lose more than his $40B stake. That would be quite the feat, and I’d love to celebrate it by sending a bottle of champagne to him at Twitter HQ.
But not real champagne, that’s cruel
(To the tune of “If I had a Million Dollars”)
What an ingenious strategy! Only a true business genius could do that.
Yeah, but Musk can afford to lose $20 billion, unlike basically everyone else in the entire world. Musk didn’t put in $40b. It was 20 from him, a couple from Saudis, 10 from Larry Ellison and 13 from bank loans.
Interesting about Dorsey. I still wonder about the horrifying statement about the sale, “Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness”. Now I wonder, was he actually that deluded or was that only Elron manipulation?
I think that billionaires need to think that they are the ones responsible for their success and wealth - that we live in a meritocracy and so anyone with Elmo’s money must be brilliant. I’ve also heard that Elmo can be quite funny and charming in person if he wants to be. Given that, plus the well known halo effect, I suspect that Dorsey mostly meant what he was saying, but the fact that he got his buyout guaranteed at least makes me suspect that he had reservations.
Removed by mod
Yes, if they lie on anything official then it’s investor fraud.
No investors, it’s a private firm by musk who took loans against it.