X's ad revenue dropped by $1.5B this year due to boycotts, as per reports.

An executive of tech company X responds to the unfavorable comparison made between his company's advertising revenue and Twitter's past successes.

Tech company X recently struggled with a decline in advertising sales. Many have attributed this to the company's business model not being as efficient as that of Twitter, a social media titan that experienced better ad sales in the past. An executive from X, however, criticized these comparisons, deeming them unproductive and misleading.

In an online forum, the executive argued that comparing X's current situation to Twitter's past triumphs was futile. He singled out two main reasons for this: their distinctive business models and Twitter's unique place in the market during its heyday. These differences, he argued, make the comparison invalid.

EU Court rules against backdoored encryption, calling it illegal for violation of human rights.
Related Article

Pointing to the differing business models, the X executive highlighted that Twitter extensively capitalized on user content to drive their ad sales. In contrast, X’s strategy involves integrating advertisements directly into their user interface, a tactic which has unfortunately not borne similar results.


The X executive further addressed Twitter's unique positioning in the market during its early years. Twitter, catering to a global community, allowed users to generate their online content, a source Twitter turned into a profitable advertising platform. However, the X executive underscored the differences in their target demographics, which are more niche and localized.

Expanding on the context in which Twitter thrived, the executive outlined how Twitter entered a social media sphere with less competition. There was easier access to users and advertising spaces, a contrast to the saturated market that X operates in today.

Another argument the X executive made was about business metrics. Competition for X is rife, with many social media platforms vying for the same advertisers. Because of this, the profitability measure for these two companies should not be the same.

Driving the point home, he stressed that X’s objective isn't solely profitability. Commendably, X is investing in creating a user-friendly platform that adds value to their user’s experience and, in return, boosts user loyalty. This win-win approach is a vital part of their long-term strategy.

The X executive urged critics to evaluate their performance based on their unique business model. It's only fair to critique a company based on the premises upon which its business model was built rather than using metrics from another company with different objectives.

Microsoft CEO urges tech industry to take action following circulation of AI-generated Taylor Swift photos.
Related Article

Specifically, he called attention to the usual assessment of tech companies - primarily profit and market share. Such parameters, he said, overlook the standout features of X's platform that differentiate them, including a loyalty-based user strategy.

The executive punctuated the point: running a tech company can't be about the highest bidder or the best profit margins. It is about managing a responsible and viable business that brings value to its users and also stays afloat amidst tough competition.

Responding to the backlash received, X is determined to uphold its core business strategy. Their model entails capitalizing on their user-loyalty strategy and incorporating ads directly into their tech platform — a departure from Twitter's largely user-generated content approach.

Despite the low ad sales, X has no plans to modify its core structure to mimic Twitter's business model. The X executive seeks to uphold their values and methodology, centered on a loyal user base and integrated advertising approach.

The call for context and understanding by the X executive is a reminder to consider the uniqueness of each company’s circumstances. Comparing one tech company's developments to another's past achievements could diminish the nuances that shape each organization's journey.

The executive's perspective underscores the importance of a purpose-driven vision above profit-driven strategies. The focus should not be merely on financial gain but on the overall experience and value provided to users.

The arguments made by the X executive highlighted the need for a comprehensive understanding of different business models in the tech industry. A one-size-fits-all evaluation method could overlook the unique strategies and value adds of each company.

The situation further serves as a reminder that the tech landscape isn't a zero-sum game. The success of one company does not necessitate the failure of another. Each tech firm can carve out its niche, providing value to users in ways that are in line with their unique mission and vision.

In conclusion, the recent comparison of X’s ad sales position to Twitter's past success was a flawed argument that missed considering each company's unique contexts. The success of a tech company isn't only about its financial gain, but more about the value it provides to its users and its sustainable business model.

The X executive’s response is a call to action for a more nuanced understanding of tech companies' business strategies. Rather than viewing a company's success in isolation, one should consider various elements that contribute to its growth and survival amidst fierce competition.

However, the question remains: can X revamp its business model to secure profitability while also remaining true to its user loyalty strategy? As critics and supporters await the answer, X would have to prove its distinctiveness within the industry amidst ongoing comparisons.