Hootsuite Blog

Yes and no. To illustrate your excellent point about how companies exploit passion, there are still some extremely small minded self aggrandizing sexist bigoted loud mouthed horrendous toddler Neanderthals throwing tantrums and insults and lighting toxic waste trash fires and melting down in public out there, exemplified by the shamefully long and sordid track record of Alex St. John [1], who even his daughter Amilia deplores [2]. But fortunately most of the rest of the game industry deplores Alex St. John just as much as his own daughter does, so thanks to her and others like EA Widow bravely stepping up and speaking out, things are gradually improving. Amilia St. John proves her point by quoting her father's own vile words in her article "I am Alex St. John’s Daughter, and He is Wrong About Women in Tech" [3]: "And finally, here we are at this written hemorrhoid from my father’s blog:" “Why do young white males tend to be the ones who pick up computers, teach themselves to code, start businesses in their basements with their friends and get rich? It’s an obvious opportunity to everybody isn’t it? If you are a different race, gender, or religion… what’s your excuse? I know of very very few successful bootstrapped tech companies founded by women or blacks.” -Alex St. John [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/alex-st-johns-sexist-recruitment-pitch-… [2] http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/21/11479710/alex-st-johns-daughter-respo… [3]…

I can see this would be appealing for some heavy Instagram users, but compared with other services it sounds a little steep. From a quick Google: The average Netflix user spends 2 or 3 hours a day on the platform: 60-90hr/month for €8-€16. Instagram users spend 12 hours a month on the platform. YouTube premium is €12 to get rid of their much more intrusive ads, plus downloads, music etc. https://blog.hootsuite.com/instagram-statistics

https://blog.hootsuite.com/instagram-demographics/ https://wallaroomedia.com/blog/social-media/tiktok-statistics/ Of course it is not good for anything and in my view it should be forbidden outright, but plenty over 18 want to consume this crap and don’t grow out of it until middle aged. But also ‘news’; people like sensationalist copy/paste news and they don’t grow out of that. Not sure how many people watch fox, but I would be surprised if most of that is not already written by AI.

Do you have a source? I thought Instagram has a large base of young users. IG is 8.5% under 18 and 30% 18-24. https://blog.hootsuite.com/instagram-demographics/

Twitter's CPM is absolutely pathetic [1]. The advertisers clearly didn't really care, or the impression price would have at least been comparable to Facebook — infamously a "brand safety" disaster, yet somehow far more effective at getting advertisers to pay. [1] https://blog.hootsuite.com/twitter-statistics/

>The same zillion people will see your short summary and the link to your blog on Twitter. No, that isn't what happens and the author of this thread's article makes the same mistake when he writes: > do not use Twitter. Your ideas, your findings, your knowledge deserve better. Put your thoughts on your own website or blog, and share it with the World using whatever social network you see fit. Agree that Twitter is terrible reading experience for long form text but the advice given above (by many complainers) misses a crucial issue: tweets with just a link to a blog article has less engagement and that's a penalty writers don't want pay. https://blog.hootsuite.com/linkless-tweets-experiment/ Writers prioritize reaching maximum audience size.

Look into Facebook pixel. Your browser is hitting this almost everywhere. https://blog.hootsuite.com/facebook-pixel/

Using public numbers (references below): The average YouTube user (>18yo) spends 41 minutes per day on YouTube. Let's guess that an average view duration is 10 minutes (~80% of an average video of 11.7 minutes). That gives us 4 video views per day. The average per view is $0.18, so $0.72 per day. Multiply by 30 to get a month, and you end up with $21.60. YouTube Premium is $11.99/month. So yes, there's a huge prize difference - the advertising revenue would be ~$10 more than the YouTube Premium price. https://blog.hootsuite.com/youtube-stats-marketers/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1026923/youtube-video-category-ave… https://influencermarketinghub.com/how-much-do-youtubers-make/

> TikTok has a reputation for being popular with teens. And it is: 27% of its users are between 13-17 years old. But internal data from March 2019 shows that its largest age demographic (42%) is the young adult crowd. https://blog.hootsuite.com/tiktok-stats/#:~:text=TikTok%20has%20a%20re… It looks like the median user is 18-24... but that's still quite young compared to "tv news" watcher where the median age is around 60. https://capitolcommunicator.com/nielsen-provides-data-on-median-age-of…

FWIW A lot of these media organizations derive a lot of their inbound traffic from Facebook. Last January[1] Facebook changed how the news feed algorithm worked. My understanding is that this severely impacted the traffic to many of these media outlets as they no longer showed up as frequently on people's news feed. For example, from a site for content marketing[2]: >Since Mark Zuckerberg’s 2018 announcement that the Facebook algorithm will prioritize “meaningful interactions” from friends and family over content from brands, it has become trickier than ever to ensure your organic content gets the screen time it deserves. [1] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/01/news-feed-fyi-bringing-people-clo… [2] https://blog.hootsuite.com/facebook-algorithm/

From the blog on HootSuite's site > Consumer users of Seesmic encouraged to explore new tools, apps and features available at Twitter.com Guess that's the side effect of these new Twitter partnerships, also a very round-about way of saying they're shutting http://blog.hootsuite.com/welcomes-seesmic-users/

Do you really expect twitter employees to be out here divulging the inner workings of the twitter algorithm? If you've used twitter for any length of time, it's plain to see. My most recent blog post[1] has been pinned to the top of my twitter profile for almost a year. It's technically detailed and very "on-brand" for my audience (it's about rooting a smart TV) It has 341 "likes" and 93,543 impressions (unfortunately I can't tell you how many hits the actual blog post got, I don't keep logs - but it's probably a smaller number) Yesterday I tweeted a ~280 character idle thought midway through my morning coffee[2]. It lacks technical depth and is largely unsurprising. It has 1356 "likes" and 147K impressions already. Whether twitter explicitly has code to downrank external links is irrelevant - the effects are obvious and quantifiable[3]. It's probably just a second-order effect of boosting posts that generate further in-app engagement - but that doesn't really matter either way. [1] https://twitter.com/David3141593/status/1475670055627247619 [2] https://twitter.com/David3141593/status/1584462389977939968 [3] https://blog.hootsuite.com/linkless-tweets-experiment/

tl;dr - They are different platforms, but they are still direct competitors, and Twitter is getting crushed. I imagine the total addressable market (roughly) to be: - humans with an internet connection - Total their clock time - Subtract all the time they are otherwise necessarily occupied (sleeping, working, etc. etc.) The remainder is the time over which all media companies are vying. Twitter is competing against Netflix, Tiktok, physical books, etc. Some of these things can be done concurrently (watching Netflix while surfing the internet, listening to radio while driving), so add that time back or double it, whatever. But, basically, this is the state of play. To say that Twitter is not competing against Tiktok, Snap, IG, etc. is to obscure the true state of play and competitive landscape. In 99.9% of cases†, you cannot scroll Tiktok and Twitter concurrently. So one or the other (or neither) is displaying ads to you. One or the other is generating revenue from those impressions. It is not really users over which they are competing. Rather, it is the ad inventory. The ad inventory is a function of time on site/app. Of course, ad inventory is definitely also a function of users–hence the focus on active users (xAUs). On that front, Twitter is a small fry[1]: - Facebook (Meta): 2.9 Billion MAUs - Instagram (Meta): 1.5 Billion MAUs - TikTok: 1 Billion MAUs - Snap: 557 Million MAUs - Twitter: 436 Million MAUs So, Twitter would have to generate a heckuva lot of…

Yes, the claim is sensational but not entirely without merit. Zuckerberg has written that, “live videos often lead to discussion among viewers on Facebook—in fact, live videos on average get six times as many interactions as regular videos.” [0]. Live streams are far more valuable to Facebook due to the more "meaningful" interactions they generate. When coupled with their ability to identify and target quite specific demographics (see 'detailed targeting' [1],[2] ), they absolutely have the power to better target any AI and human moderators. If they were to couple this with a built-in live-stream delay (allowing say for some level of video content analysis prior to display) then I contend they could score 'harmful' material reasonably accurately - perhaps accurately enough to pipe into a queue for human vetting before publication (of course, unless they try, we'll never know for sure, so arguments on this are kind of moot). However, each of these elements come at a cost to FB's business model. MZ has already spoken out against delays in live streaming. Also, your rebuttal is disingenuous. The claim that they "have no clue what kind of stuff gets posted on their platform", doesn't jibe with their self-described abilities (as pitched to their advertiser customers as "detailed targetting"). I agree that they can't identify with 100% accuracy, but that's not required. If they can get the accuracy high enough that a higher-scrutiny vetting process can be imposed (wether AI or…