Wait... Twitter has about 1/10 the engagement of FB but lags in revenue per user by only a factor of 2? I might be going crazy but it sure sounds like you're making an argument for specialness of twitter here.
Maybe.. I'm in a different mindset when using Twitter than FB. I use Twitter somewhat professionally, to discover new tools, learn things, follow people that are relevant to my work. I use FB purely for my private personal life.
When I see Twitter ads for SaaS offerings or software tools, I actually read them. On FB, I'm very good at completely ignoring the ads.
That's precisely my experience. I've actually read Twitter ads because, what do you know, those ads are better targeted.
For all the data that Facebook is said to collect, they actually don't have much on me besides friends I barely know, pictures of my child, some political rants and jokes liked.
Twitter on the other hand has a list of people with which I share interests and they can do targeting based on that list. Which is exactly what they are doing and for me it worked. I'm actually amazed that they aren't doing better on paper.
Depends. If I spend 1 hour on FB - showing me 2 min of ads is easier. If I spend 6 minutes on twitter - with one minute of ads I am not only heavily monetized, but probably you are pushing my ad tolerance limits.
FB could easily double their ad content and still be usable. Is that true for twitter?
Do you actually spend 1 hour per day on FB? And lets not include FB's messenger, since that doesn't count.
Seriously, what do you do for 1 hour per day?
And don't get me wrong, because I've seen some folks spending a lot of time on FB, I've got at least one family relative doing it, but those are the losers that are IMHO only worth targeting by soda and beer companies.
Messenger counts because I prefer to do my chatting on desktop on their website (preference to use keyboard sized for humans not chipmunks). Also you have to somehow fill the time between 9 and 5.
