Managing them was a chore however because they increased the complexity of the output chain. I would always give priority to the biggest site bringing in the largest amount of money.
E.g. I had 80M users with 26 years of work. That's really bad compared to say facebook/instagram/tiktok.
-
-
A good marketer is really amazing. Most of the time my marketer was just making components for marketing campaigns. In the game, once you create a campaign you just add/subtract money from it so the marketer doesn't have to do much.
Show this thread -
I had 2 marketers at the end. I could probably have done with 1. They come in really handy for new websites since I had enough money to throw at expensive campaigns. I'd just use them once to create a high level campaign module like TV or podcast (vs lower level ones like ads)
Show this thread -
My largest 40M users site was ranked 8 out of 11. I acquired 2 competitors. Valuations was half a billion dollars. The #1 was Friendbook with 2B users and an 18B valuation.
Show this thread -
Still room to grow but it gets really repetitive and grindy. I simply didn't want to deal with the complexity.
Show this thread -
I wonder if all companies at a high level are just resource management games. CEOs for e.g. feel like variations of Business Man. When I added additional sites like an e-commerce store and video streaming site the only change was more complex developer/designer management.
Show this thread -
The bulk of the work, maximizing growth, scale, profits, etc... via marketing/sales/data-centers/outsourcing-for-critical-bottlenecks/etc... took up most of my attention.
Show this thread -
Anyway... revenue snapshot right before I bought out all the investors, transferred 100M to my bank and left the company w/ a 10M warchest.pic.twitter.com/MI4pVO6zI1
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.