Elon Starts Bribing His Biggest Fans As He Admits The Company Is Still Burning Cash (Despite His Earlier Claims To The Contrary)

from the full-tilt-twitter dept

It seems to anger certain Elon Musk fans every time I mention it, but pre-Elon Twitter was generally doing okay. Not great. Not terrible. Just okay. It wasn’t printing cash like Meta or Google, but it had been steadily increasing revenue and was profitable in 16 of the previous 20 quarters before Elon took over. There was a big paper loss in the 2nd quarter of 2020 due to a single noncash deferred tax asset, and many people see that giant loss and mistakenly think it showed the company was deep in the hole. However, you can tell it was nothing given that most analysts basically ignored that single big loss and focused on the underlying advertising and user numbers.

Elon has admitted multiple times now that he basically set fire to Twitter’s value and what had been a growing revenue stream. So it’s little surprise that he admitted it once again over the weekend, tweeting an admission that the company had lost around 50% of its advertising revenue.

The more interesting bit here, though, was him admitting that the company was “still negative cash flow.” Remember, in February, he had said the company was “trending to breakeven” and in April had suggested that it was now there. That April statement included him claiming that “most” advertisers had returned to Twitter, which Musk is now effectively admitting was a lie. And, his prediction that the company would be “cash flow positive” in the 2nd quarter didn’t quite pan out, I guess.

Of course, both of the things he complains about are directly due to Musk’s own terrible decisions. Advertisers have bailed because of his terrible choices, setting fire to brand safety efforts and driving away top tier advertisers (and users), and the “heavy debt load” was entirely due to his decision to finance $13 billion of the takeover with debt, on which the company how has to pay interest.

Both of those moves could have been easily avoided.

On top of that, you have to wonder how a company that was effectively breakeven before all of this is still cash flow negative when he’s (1) fired somewhere around 80% of the employees, (2) stopped paying rent (3) refused to pay out owed severance packages (4) not paying lawyers and PR companies or (5) cloud computing bills. He’s also shut down one of the company’s three data centers and closed offices (or been evicted from them).

What expenses is he actually paying?

Well, it seems he’s paying out what can only be considered bribes to some of his favorite Twitter users. Back in February, Elon announced that the company would start sharing ad revenue with Twitter Blue subscribers.

But since then there had been not a peep, even as some users raised questions about such payments.

Then, finally, late last week, some users started tweeting about how they had received their first payments, though many noticed that these payments were basically only going to Elon Musk’s favorite reply guys. This left some others (including some other Musk stans) pissed off that they weren’t getting their share of the cash.

Among those in Twitter’s payout pool was Andrew Tate, who tweeted that he received $20,379 under the new program. Tate wrote that “every penny” of the proceeds will go toward his Tate Pledge charity initiatives. The former pro kickboxer, who once tweeted that women should “bare [sic] some responsibility” for being raped, last year claimed tech platforms had banned him for what he said were “traditional masculine values.” Tate has 7.1 million followers on Twitter; his Twitter account had been banned in 2017 and was reinstated after Musk acquired the social network. Last month Tate was charged with rape and human trafficking offenses in Romania. Earlier this week, Tate and his brother Tristan sued a Florida woman and others, alleging they conspired to falsely accuse the Tates in the Romania case, the AP reported.

Also getting Twitter payments were Brian Krassenstein ($24,305) and Ed Krassenstein ($24,877), entrepreneurs who originally rose to prominence on the platform with their relentless anti-Trump tweets. “Now I’m going to stop promoting border crossings and begin promoting Tesla vehicles,” Ed Krassenstein joked in a tweet. “I assumed I’d would be getting paid around $500 or so for the past 4-5 months. I thought, it would be pennies on the dollar compared to what George Soros pays me (sarcasm).”

In 2019, the Krassentein brothers were banned by Twitter for allegedly using fake accounts to amplify their reach (which they denied). Following Musk’s takeover of the company last fall, Twitter reinstated their accounts in December.

Other Twitter users who shared ad-revenue payouts included podcaster and political commentator Benny Johnson ($9,546), Ashley St. Clair, a writer for political satire site Babylon Bee ($7,153), and an anonymously run account called End Wokeness ($10,419).

One user, who was not included, emailed Twitter and heard back from the company confirming that those selected were not based on the criteria stated in Twitter’s blog post about the program, but rather the payouts went “to a selected group of people.”

That email is all kinds of hilarious. In case you can’t see the image, it says:

Thanks for reaching out about being unable to receive your payment from Creator Ads Revenue Sharing on Twitter. We have information for you.

Currently, creator ad revenue sharing is only available to a selected group of people.

We hope this clarifies your concern.

Indeed, you do have information.

So… to sum up: Elon’s own decisions destroyed the company’s revenue and saddled it with way more expenses in the form of debt interest/repayment. The company is bleeding users and revenue, and despite promising a large group of users payouts if they joined his failed “Twitter Blue” program, the company is only paying that money to a small handpicked group which seems to consist almost entirely of accounts that suck up to Musk on the platform.

I might not be an intergalactic business genius, like many people assure me Musk is, but I fail to see how this strategy succeeds.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Elon Starts Bribing His Biggest Fans As He Admits The Company Is Still Burning Cash (Despite His Earlier Claims To The Contrary)”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
91 Comments
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

I love the new Twitter! It’s hilarious how instead of being quiet and complaining about a leftist bias while their own documentation shows a right wing bias, they now blatantly behave with a right wing / ancap bias and even more loudly complain about a leftist bias. This is truly entertaining. Though it is somewhat sad that people believe this clown show.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

If he didn’t have questionable finances, didn’t already “own” another social media service, and wasn’t in so much legal trouble (with more yet to come!), I’d say that Donald Trump would happily agree to buy Twitter.

Of course, it would immediately death spiral faster than even Musk!Twitter, but I doubt that would matter to the orange shithead.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Money spinning opportunity though:

Rates per month

Bronze “Trump Approved” checkmark $25
Silver “Cheated out of an election win” checkmark $75
Gold “President-in-waiting Trump” checkmark $200
Platinum “Call me Donald” checkmark $500

“Free speech, no censorship (no lefties)” add-on at 2x checkmark rates.

Honestly, the faithful would throw money at this.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
RP says:

Parasocial Cronyism

Tweet from July 14

Elon: (explaining payout amounts) It’s not exactly per impression. What matters is how many ads were shown to other verified users.

Only verified users count, as it is otherwise trivial to game the system with bots.

Montana Skeptic: As another poster here (whom I don’t want to expose to shadow-banning points out, Twitter is not just a scam; it’s a Multi-Level Marketing scheme.

RP: MLM scams cling to the facade of legality because they work by formula. There is no formula here, just parasocial cronyism.

Anonymous Coward says:

One more tidbit that makes the story even “better”: when the news broke and people were “discussing” it, most popular tweets were along the lines of “…i bet those libs that refused to pay the 8$ are now regretting it. Go woke- go broke”. I’d say reactions like this are doing something for the attractiveness of the as yet “selectively available” program and the platform as a whole, just that this something has a very large minus sign attached to it.
Also someone had compiled a list of the accounts that said they received the money, it’s probably incomplete, but about 25-33% of it consists of anti-Ukraine + some sort of conspiracy / bigotry peddling hacks.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Stop lying about this, you tell the same made up story every time.

pre-Elon Twitter was generally doing okay. Not great. Not terrible. Just okay.

No, it wasn’t. It was losing money over the last few years, it was losing money over the last 10 years, and it has lost money over it’s entire lifespan. (I can only find data for the last 10 years easily but I happen to know it was losing money prior to that, which people discounted as it being a “start-up” back then)

was profitable in 16 of the previous 20 quarters before Elon took over.

This is classic Cherry-picking. I can’t tell if you’re dumb enough to actually think that’s a meaningful thing to say, or you just think your readers are so dumb it doesn’t matter. Regardless it’s ffffinng meaningless. But goddamn you keep on saying it, no matter how stupid it is.

Twitter was losing money over any reasonable (i.e. not cherry picked) span you care to pick. It has never been profitable long-term. It may survive, it may not, but it wasn’t going to before.

Let’s not forget the purpose of buying it was not to make money, btw, but to make the censorship stop, both ideological (i.e. dystopian, but legal) and 1A violating at the government’s request.

Power Stations of the Cross (profile) says:

Re: Censorship

Let’s not forget the purpose of buying it was not to make money, btw, but to make the censorship stop, both ideological (i.e. dystopian, but legal) and 1A violating at the government’s request.

The 1st Amendment isn’t a suicide pact, and was never intended to allow a despot’s bootlickers to undermine the republic, deliberately or not. Please note that I’m not suggesting that’s what you are.

A lot of Americans need to learn what a liberal democracy actually looks like so they can decide if they want to continue to live in one. I would very much like to disabuse some “patriots” of the notion that freedom is absolute and/or an uncomplicated concept.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

It’s not going to work. You once said you were done responding to me, and that lasted for about a millisecond before you were back to replying with your usual errors and hallucinations.

Let’s see if I can trigger you: No one with any sense believes Jayapal’s apology. Everyone knows that she and the other progressives hate Jews and Israel passionately, and Democrats making her participate in a struggle session isn’t going to change that. Liberals seem to be intent on peeling away as many normal, sensible people from the Democratic party as they can. They’ll be left with a hardcore group of racist anti-semitic Marxist Lysenkoist true believers who will never win an election again.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

If it were, that would be so comforting, right? Rather than the idea that “I’m offended [triggered/scared pick your poison]” has been weaponized to effectively ban dissent.

“You can’t speak, it makes me feel unsafe“. Those words are LITERALLY said, frequently, insane as it is.

And when someone mocks that, your response is “look, they’re trying to make me feel unsafe, that’s all they got”.

Methinks you’ve lost the thread.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I’d rather be offended over 2girls1cup, lemonparty and rickrolling than, I dunno, living in a somewhat credible fear of a 74-million strong insurrection supporters commiting genocide by orders of DeSantis, Trump and the Republican Party, and the politicians, moneyed interests and brainwashed leaders of nationstates and their armies/police forces.

I’d like my hobbies back, terrorist scum.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

It’s worse considering the insurrection troll brigade have approvingly opined on Jan 6, physically threatened the commentariat at least once, have espoused extremely violent opinions or approved of violent action to minorities and movements opposed to them.

So uh, with all that evidence, tell me again why I should not be living in fear when they exist.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Are you telling me, in order for you to feel safe, I or some other set of people should not exist?

Yes.

You should not exist. You directly compete with lesbians for the limited pool of women. And you’ve shown, time and time again, that you cannot be trusted around women.

Fuck off and let us have our moment.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

If I have to prove to that someone said something like that, that tells me you’ve crawled so up your own ideological butthole there’s little point to trying. But yeah, this sorta sentiment comes up ALL the time, especially when college activists are trying to block some speaker.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

This is why I’ve moved on to lmao-ing at the void

No, you’ve devolved to “fuck off [blank]” because you are incapable of making a cogent argument and we’ve shown it to you.

Don’t get me wrong, I (obviously) see nothing wrong with some swearing but you also have to make an argument worth paying attention to. Refuting, at the least.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

The 1st Amendment isn’t a suicide pact

Well yes, it is, or rather it is absolute, because it is not up to you, solely, nor government in aggregate, to decide what “despot” is nor “undermining the republic”. Fuck, the ability to “undermine the republic” is literally the fucking point of the 1A, and why the government must never, ever, absolutely never be given the ability to limit it.

First amendment is absolute, really and truly and regardless of whether you like it. If you think it is OK to limit other’s free speech because you don’t agree with them the appropriate answer is violence, which is why the 2A exists. Full stop.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well yes, it is, or rather it is absolute, because it is not up to you, solely, nor government in aggregate, to decide what “despot” is nor “undermining the republic”. Fuck, the ability to “undermine the republic” is literally the fucking point of the 1A, and why the government must never, ever, absolutely never be given the ability to limit it.

Shit. Someone should tell the Supreme Court that the list of exceptions to the 1st Amendment they’ve created is not allowed, according to some dumbshit nobody on the internet. I’m sure they’ll be upset.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Fuck, the ability to “undermine the republic” is literally the fucking point of the 1A…

That’s a pretty horrific misunderstanding of the 1A. Like, wow…

First amendment is absolute, really and truly and regardless of whether you like it.

Except for the numerous exceptions provided by well-established case law and SCOTUS decisions. So, really and truly not actually absolute.

If you think it is OK to limit other’s free speech because you don’t agree with them the appropriate answer is violence, which is why the 2A exists.

Guns nuts love to claim they have the right to resort to armed violence against the government because of the 2A but conveniently ignore all the other parts of the constitution that say you’re absolutely not allowed to do that. I guess that’s because there aren’t any corrupt lobbying groups advocating for not shooting up the government.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

That’s a pretty horrific misunderstanding of the 1A. Like, wow…

Oh man, wait until you hear about the 2A.

Except for the numerous exceptions provided by well-established case law and SCOTUS decisions. So, really and truly not actually absolute.

They really aren’t numerous. It’s really just “true credible threats” which is really an extension of assault. Everything else is a very edge case, “Obscenity” these days really only applies to channels gov has direct control over (i.e. vanity license) plates, fraud is a commerce issue.

People try to pretend defamation has an intersection with the 1A but that’s a civil matter between private parties and these people are just trying to pretend the 1A is weaker than it is (as you are). It’s pretty fucking dumb. Guess what, NDAs have nothing to do with the 1A either.

Perhaps it’s more correct to say in regards to political speech it is absolute, but it’s pretty fucking absolute otherwise, too, and the “exceptions” don’t really have much to do with speech. If you are claiming otherwise, you just hate the constitution. 🙂

Guns nuts love to claim they have the right to resort to armed violence against the government because of the 2A

Gee, imagine if it had been written by a buncha people who had very recently resorted to violence against government.

Rebellion is a funny thing. If it fails you call it treason and if it works you call it revolution. It is both in some cases obviously required (various tyrannical governments, we all wish various assassination plots against Hitler had worked) yet not something you can just let happen without dread (usually fatal) penalty.

The proper reading of the 2A is not that it legalizes armed insurrection but that it is designed to ensure armed insurrection is always a viable possibility. The people who wrote feared government power over all else.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re:

Let’s not forget the purpose of buying it was not to make money…

Why don’t you go ask all Elon’s investors if that’s what they actually signed up for. I think you’ll probably find you’ve been sold a line.

…but to make the censorship stop, both ideological (i.e. dystopian, but legal)…

You call it “ideological censorship”, most call it “no Nazis and assholes please”.

…and 1A violating at the government’s request.

The clue you’re wrong about this is when even the wackadoo 5th Circuit says “Whoa, we’re not that crazy”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

The clue you’re wrong about this is when even the wackadoo 5th Circuit says “Whoa, we’re not that crazy”.

This is actually sad. Masnick told you that’s what they said so that’s what you think they said.

I know you haven’t been paying attention, but Masnick lies, like a lot. Significantly more than Fauci.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Let’s not forget the purpose of buying it was not to make money, btw, but to make the censorship stop, both ideological (i.e. dystopian, but legal) and 1A violating at the government’s request

Why do you Elon apologists keep clinging to this tired overused trope like it poses any kind of meaningful significance?

All that says is your biggest moneymaker sunk his money and reputation in trying to salvage a website that you hate, which you’ve claimed on multiple occasions that you didn’t use, just so your straight white buddies can go in and fuck it up for everybody else while you continue to pour money into an expenditure with no monetary benefit.

I’ve never seen someone herniate his back so hard just to suck someone else’s dick.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Won't pay rent but will pay certain users...

Who ever could have foreseen that the ‘revenue sharing’ offered to all users of the new negatively-useful verification system would turn out to be just a way for Elon to give money to people he liked, how totally out of character for him to have lied like that.

I can’t help but suspect that paying select users even as he refuses to pay for things like ‘rent’ or ‘hosting’ might not go over too well for those companies being ripped off, given it’s showing even more crystal clear how trivial he considers them and what they are offering.

Anonymous Coward says:

That’s not impressive numbers. I remember some celebrities that were get paid few thousand bucks just for a simple tweet.

Most of the time, when a new service opens, there always stories about some indie making a lot of money: a woman won 1M$ when Amazon launched its self-publishing book service, some indie game studio earn 600k$ the first week when Epic Store was launched, a game developper earn few millions during the first year of iOS App Store, etc.

These stories “leak” (even if it’s part of the marketing) and many people get attracted to the service, spending a lot of effort to hope earning that much (but since most of the rules are biased to help only the biggest companies), and this (kind of) works, the service appears as “financially successful for everybody”.

But even earning few tens of thousand (certainly the only payment ever for many), after years using the service and millions of followers, for just a few dozens of users won’t motivate new users to come. They should start a new YouTube channel and find some sponsors to earn a little money but for years. Now, with an extra 1B$ of debt, to pay some big prizes, this would be a great incentive. But it seems that he bought an expensive yacht but you have no money left to fill the gazoline tank. This just floating, for now.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Robert Sutton says:

Twitter under Musk

Twitter was always a bit toxic, yet it was still occasionally possible to have a civil interaction outside of one’s own echo chamber, in which users could agree to disagree on some topics while finding common ground on others.

Now that the algorithm favors Musk’s paid army of keyboard warriors and their dipstick crusade against “wokeism”, those interactions are no longer possible.

No amount of financial shaming will change the mind of anyone who’s already decided against paying for Twitter and who’ll eventually leave the platform altogether.

Under Musk’s ownership of Twitter, the inmates are now running the asylum.

Gary Mont (user link) says:

Just saying...

“I might not be an intergalactic business genius, like many people assure me Musk is, but I fail to see how this strategy succeeds.”

That would depend on what kind of “success” the strategy is actually aimed at.

So far, the goal seems to be the total destruction of Twitter as a public news and information source, and its reincarnation as a Rightwing BS center that will be a source for misinformation and fake news, supported by fascist owned corporations, bigots and criminals of every stripe. It will be a place for all the True Believers to get their daily hate-reinforcement propaganda-gospel dosage.

No longer will Twitter be a threat to the fascists by educating and informing the peasants, and its purchase and transformation into a un-washable urinal, will send the simple message to any new Twitter clones, that money trumps all.

Pun intended.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

YouTube have a long-standing program of sharing ad revenue, which they do from the ad platform they run themselves, based on generally proven metrics (although there’s always complaints when they change something).

Twitter have apparently just handed out a bunch of money to random accounts without any long term plan and even without announcing that it was happening beforehand (many recipients have expressed surprise at getting money), and many Musk sycophants are complaining they got nothing.

It’s not the same at all.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

If you have to ask perhaps you are too stupid to understand why it’s different. Let me help you a bit:

  • 2010 0.8 0.2
  • 2011 1.3 0.5
  • 2012 1.7 0.7
  • 2013 3.1 1.0
  • 2014 4.2 1.1
  • 2015 5.5 1.3
  • 2016 6.7 1.5
  • 2017 8.1 1.6
  • 2018 11.1 1.8
  • 2019 15.1 2.0
  • 2020 19.7 2.3
  • 2021 28.8 2.5
  • 2022 29.2 2.6

I’ll let you figure out what the numbers mean, see it as an exercise in improving your intelligence. I’ll give you a hint, the 1st column is the year and the 2nd & 3rd are measured in billions.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...