Digital media budgets for almost all companies are essentially put into three buckets (larger companies might have a local publisher/programmatic/digital TV bucket as well).<p>1. Google Search<p>2. Meta/YouTube (maybe TikTok)<p>3. Other platforms/bets<p>Bucket three is basically all of Reddit/Snap/X/Pinterest/LinkedIn etc., they are all sub scale, and they all perform worse than the other platforms in almost every single niche. None of them work particularly well, everyone knows they don't work super well, but we all keep throwing a few dollars their way because the idea of business performance being at the whim of two companies is frightening. They're all fighting over scraps though.<p>I'm probably being a little hyperbolic, but probably not by much.
LinkedIn is aging like fine wine in Microsoft’s cellar.<p>Microsoft surprises me with OpenAI, LinkedIn and GitHub. Their own engineering practices aren’t that great but they seem to excel at what to acquire and what to invest in.
One wouldn't think that Twitter and LinkedIn's ad markets are 1:1 but I guess advertisers have to put their budget somewhere for the time being. It would be interesting to see how ad campaigns that targeted Twitter's more general user base fare on the more professionally-minded LinkedIn. I'm far more likely to be interested in an AppleTV ad on Twitter than if I saw it on LinkedIn but that might just be me.
Trading 1 trash platform for another. LinkedIn could be such a great place if it didn't abuse your information and subscribe to such dark patterns. I still remember having my entire address book harvested and spammed (way back when). I will never forget that. I will never trust LinkedIn. Doesn't matter what they do.
Twitter ads were mostly for brand awareness - the ads don't directly lead to sales, but they lead to a good brand image which leads to indirect sales later.<p>The effectiveness of brand ads is notoriously hard to measure, so it comes down to the gut feeling of marketing execs rather than cold hard numbers like CPA like google ads.<p>The gut feeling associated with twitter right now is, to put it mildly, rather low.
Ironic given half my LinkedIn feed has been overtaken by this ridiculous meta of screen capping your own tweets, photoshopping a blue tick into it and posting on LinkedIn.<p>Edit: A relevant example.<p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/@malwaretech/111053576407435909" rel="nofollow">https://infosec.exchange/@malwaretech/111053576407435909</a>
I'd believe this more if it wasn't alleged that they were going to _LinkedIn_. Who the heck uses LinkedIn? And of those that do, how many of them are the target audience for Disney?
Given that Twitter now consists of Elon and whatever ragtag bunch of H1Bs are keeping the lights on, how can they possibly even go to the trade desk with a straight face? They literally have zero meaningful metrics at this point, and the brand value is trending into the negative.
When I was in high school and college, I had bad insomnia. I watched a lot of late night TV as a consequence. I understood demographics and targeted advertising, and I found it insulting how asinine late night TV ads were. This is who they think I am?<p>Took me a while to realize that very few of those ads were really targeted, it’s just when the cheap ad slots were. If you spend a lot on ads it’s valuable to spend a bit more to make sure they’re connecting. But if you’re going cheap the shotgun effect isn’t a terrible strategy.<p>I think X is quickly going to find that Billy Mays was a paragon of cheap ad placements and half of what they get will be worse.
I mean is it even surprising.<p>LinkedIn: Mostly <i>thought leaders</i>, few thought followers.<p>X: Few thought leaders, mostly followers.<p>If I have some ad budget, I'd rather spend it on reaching out to <i>leaders</i>.