Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal

Motley Fool2021-03-10

Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform. Fintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

SomaKun
·2021-03-11
Lave one comment :D
回复
点赞
举报
sharensim
·2021-03-11
Ya ya ya
回复
1
举报
JeanChien
·2021-03-10
Interesting read
回复
点赞
举报
Rache13
·2021-03-10
Yea
回复
2
举报
Lynny
·2021-03-10
He wants the musicians to use Square and increase its social capital.
回复
2
举报
sakam0t0
·2021-03-10
Ba ba rias
回复
6
举报
yrpang
·2021-03-10
I agree
回复
3
举报
Prashant
·2021-03-10
Haha
回复
4
举报
nweiheng
·2021-03-10
Weird purchase consideeing square's biz
回复
1
举报
trisnando
·2021-03-10
Tidal is good dou
回复
点赞
举报
EilselMil
·2021-03-10
Hmmm
回复
1
举报
JeremyBucki
·2021-03-10
Yes
回复
2
举报
Jason138
·2021-03-10
Oh no
回复
1
举报
ADL
·2021-03-10
he said she said. hindsight is 20/20. any one agrees?
回复
1
举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1197825407","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","media":"Motley Fool","content":"<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":null,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"TWTR","symbol_name":"Twitter","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","article_id":"1197825407","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":null,"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"fool.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"translate_title":"为什么Twitter而不是Square,Inc应该收购Tidal","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"SQ":0.9,"TWTR":0.9},"content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":321132970,"gmtCreate":1615401704690,"gmtModify":1703488621102,"author":{"id":"3576807760608840","authorId":"3576807760608840","name":"SomaKun","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5771c3a09679e65d4c2e573b7bc32dce","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3576807760608840","authorIdStr":"3576807760608840"},"htmlText":"Lave one comment :D&nbsp;","listText":"Lave one comment :D&nbsp;","text":"Lave one comment :D","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321132970","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321327229,"gmtCreate":1615396665161,"gmtModify":1703488547722,"author":{"id":"3577017083309122","authorId":"3577017083309122","name":"sharensim","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f4b1543300d240c4ec45ec276672815","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3577017083309122","authorIdStr":"3577017083309122"},"htmlText":"Ya ya ya","listText":"Ya ya ya","text":"Ya ya ya","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321327229","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321014989,"gmtCreate":1615385167641,"gmtModify":1703488226083,"author":{"id":"3569555835387221","authorId":"3569555835387221","name":"JeanChien","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c7dae44ba32e72911f78033a885c4d85","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3569555835387221","authorIdStr":"3569555835387221"},"htmlText":"Interesting read","listText":"Interesting read","text":"Interesting read","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321014989","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321094593,"gmtCreate":1615383914812,"gmtModify":1703488197737,"author":{"id":"3573532802717234","authorId":"3573532802717234","name":"Rache13","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ccf273862879d166aad5128bba7a8589","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3573532802717234","authorIdStr":"3573532802717234"},"htmlText":"Yea","listText":"Yea","text":"Yea","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321094593","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321093012,"gmtCreate":1615383230436,"gmtModify":1703488187540,"author":{"id":"3576275613425159","authorId":"3576275613425159","name":"Lynny","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7c0b8b78e97626dedf9ed61da1957ab7","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3576275613425159","authorIdStr":"3576275613425159"},"htmlText":"He wants the musicians to use Square and increase its social capital.&nbsp;","listText":"He wants the musicians to use Square and increase its social capital.&nbsp;","text":"He wants the musicians to use Square and increase its social capital.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321093012","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321005077,"gmtCreate":1615382559999,"gmtModify":1703488180620,"author":{"id":"3568717943755464","authorId":"3568717943755464","name":"sakam0t0","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9ee28596ffff09e873a45cf00c767dba","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3568717943755464","authorIdStr":"3568717943755464"},"htmlText":"Ba ba rias","listText":"Ba ba rias","text":"Ba ba rias","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321005077","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321001729,"gmtCreate":1615382300961,"gmtModify":1703488176636,"author":{"id":"3574559888038133","authorId":"3574559888038133","name":"yrpang","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574559888038133","authorIdStr":"3574559888038133"},"htmlText":"I agree","listText":"I agree","text":"I agree","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321001729","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321001678,"gmtCreate":1615382270294,"gmtModify":1703488175945,"author":{"id":"3569291088297790","authorId":"3569291088297790","name":"Prashant","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d8814671cf4887208a8404f7fc63d9fd","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3569291088297790","authorIdStr":"3569291088297790"},"htmlText":"Haha","listText":"Haha","text":"Haha","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321001678","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321003587,"gmtCreate":1615382214449,"gmtModify":1703488175082,"author":{"id":"3576578191878168","authorId":"3576578191878168","name":"nweiheng","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6d61d9c9d9ae6133e9ba0f2a30075faf","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3576578191878168","authorIdStr":"3576578191878168"},"htmlText":"Weird purchase consideeing square's biz","listText":"Weird purchase consideeing square's biz","text":"Weird purchase consideeing square's biz","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321003587","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321003603,"gmtCreate":1615382210402,"gmtModify":1703488174736,"author":{"id":"3575507353908450","authorId":"3575507353908450","name":"trisnando","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a97932ca83eff2802eeb59122aeca88e","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3575507353908450","authorIdStr":"3575507353908450"},"htmlText":"Tidal is good dou","listText":"Tidal is good dou","text":"Tidal is good dou","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321003603","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":321000382,"gmtCreate":1615382031246,"gmtModify":1703488171618,"author":{"id":"3570955333429567","authorId":"3570955333429567","name":"EilselMil","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7b15051acb7212e7e9298e04e3619127","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3570955333429567","authorIdStr":"3570955333429567"},"htmlText":"Hmmm","listText":"Hmmm","text":"Hmmm","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/321000382","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":323777025,"gmtCreate":1615381937867,"gmtModify":1703488169888,"author":{"id":"3577093311759454","authorId":"3577093311759454","name":"JeremyBucki","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/06b6bcfdb0985ea37c3fa030ba9c0476","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3577093311759454","authorIdStr":"3577093311759454"},"htmlText":"Yes","listText":"Yes","text":"Yes","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/323777025","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":323776700,"gmtCreate":1615381649400,"gmtModify":1703488165554,"author":{"id":"3575365928794226","authorId":"3575365928794226","name":"Jason138","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5ad85b6a3945a01527a3e64577bb8276","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3575365928794226","authorIdStr":"3575365928794226"},"htmlText":"Oh no","listText":"Oh no","text":"Oh no","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/323776700","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":323776048,"gmtCreate":1615381607584,"gmtModify":1703488163985,"author":{"id":"3572161139823685","authorId":"3572161139823685","name":"ADL","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/46f309a3de1b3b77e46ca01bc05767be","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3572161139823685","authorIdStr":"3572161139823685"},"htmlText":"he said she said. hindsight is 20/20. any one agrees?","listText":"he said she said. hindsight is 20/20. any one agrees?","text":"he said she said. hindsight is 20/20. any one agrees?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/323776048","repostId":1197825407,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1197825407","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1615381494,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1197825407?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-10 21:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197825407","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network ins","content":"<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.</p>\n<p>Fintech stalwart&nbsp;<b>Square</b>(NYSE:SQ&nbsp;)is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,<b>Bitcoin</b>(CRYPTO:BTC)&nbsp;purchases, and stock trades for consumers.</p>\n<p>In a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads&nbsp;<b>Twitter</b>(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"</p>\n<p>But as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.</p>\n<p><b>Why buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square</b></p>\n<p>Tidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.</p>\n<p>In 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its&nbsp;subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.</p>\n<p>By comparison,<b>Spotify</b>(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with&nbsp;345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.<b>Apple</b>(NASDAQ:AAPL)&nbsp;Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last&nbsp;year.</p>\n<p>Tidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.</p>\n<p>Tidal's net loss&nbsp;only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.</p>\n<p>Excluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in&nbsp;<b>DoorDash</b>(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in&nbsp;late 2019.</p>\n<p>Square likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,<b>Grubhub</b>, or&nbsp;<b>Uber</b>&nbsp;Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.</p>\n<p>Caviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.</p>\n<p><b>Why Tidal is a better fit for Twitter</b></p>\n<p>Twitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by&nbsp;the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements will<i>more than double</i>its annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.</p>\n<p>But I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like&nbsp;<b>Snap</b>'s Snapchat and&nbsp;<b>Pinterest</b>&nbsp;are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.</p>\n<p>However, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.</p>\n<p>Twitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this&nbsp;year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.</p>\n<p><b>The bottom line</b></p>\n<p>I don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Twitter, Not Square, Should Have Bought Tidal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-10 21:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"TWTR":"Twitter","SQ":"Block"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/10/why-twitter-should-have-bought-tidal-not-square/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1197825407","content_text":"Jack Dorsey should have steered the struggling streaming music service toward his social network instead of his fintech platform.\nFintech stalwart Square(NYSE:SQ )is buying a majority stake in the streaming music service Tidal for $297 million in cash and stock. Jay-Z, who owns Tidal through his holding company, Project Panther Bidco, will join Square's board. The acquisition raised eyebrows since Square mainly provides online payment services for merchants, and peer-to-peer payments,Bitcoin(CRYPTO:BTC) purchases, and stock trades for consumers.\nIn a threaded tweet, Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who also leads Twitter(NYSE:TWTR), defended the purchase by declaring that Square's payment services could help Tidal's musicians \"support their work,\" and there were still plenty of \"compelling\" growth opportunities \"between music and the economy.\"\nBut as a Square investor, I still can't see the synergies between Square and Tidal. Instead, I think Tidal would have been a better fit for Twitter, which is already a major promotional platform for musicians.\nWhy buying Tidal doesn't make sense for Square\nTidal is a distant underdog in the crowded streaming music market. It claimed to serve 3 million subscribers in early 2016, but it hasn't updated that figure since then.\nIn 2017, a Norwegian newspaper claimed Tidal was inflating its subscriber numbers, and that it only had about 1.2 million subscribers. Last year, Counterpoint Research claimed Tidal only accounted for about 5% of the streaming music market.\nBy comparison,Spotify(NYSE:SPOT)ended 2020 with 345 million monthly active users and 155 million paid subscribers.Apple(NASDAQ:AAPL) Music surpassed 72 million subscribers last year.\nTidal costs $9.99 per month for standard-quality streams, which roughly matches Spotify Premium and Apple Music's prices, and $19.99 per month for high-quality streams. Its revenue rose 26% to $147.6 million in 2018, which suggests it only served about 1.2 million to 2.4 million subscribers that year.\nTidal's net loss only narrowed slightly from $40.2 million to $36.9 million in 2018. It hasn't revealed any updated figures for 2019 or 2020 yet.\nMeanwhile, Square's own bottom line remains wobbly. Its net income declined 43% to $213 million in 2020, as itrelied heavilyon lower-margin Bitcoin revenue to offset its declining transaction fee revenue throughout the pandemic.\nExcluding $295 million in investment-related gains, most of which came from its stake in DoorDash(NYSE:DASH), it would have posted a net loss of $82 million. Square gained that stake by selling its food delivery platform, Caviar, to DoorDash in late 2019.\nSquare likely sold Caviar because it was losing money and couldn't gain much ground against DoorDash,Grubhub, or Uber Eats in the food delivery market. But Tidal is also losing money and struggling to stay relevant in a market dominated by larger rivals.\nCaviar, which could be integrated into Square's \"Square for Restaurants\" platform, also seemed like a much better fit for Square's payments ecosystem than Tidal. Dorsey believes Squarecan enhanceTidal's ecosystem by helping its musicians sell merchandise, accept payments for shows, and more -- but those synergies don't seem to justify a purchase of nearly $300 million.\nWhy Tidal is a better fit for Twitter\nTwitter recently set someambitious growth targetsfor 2023. It expects to grow its mDAUs (monetizable daily active users) from 192 million at the end of 2020 to \"at least\" 315 million by the end of 2023. It plans to significantly increase its number of monetizable features and believes those improvements willmore than doubleits annual revenue from $3.7 billion in 2020 to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. Twitter also plans to offer more ad products for small-to-medium-sized businesses, expand its mobile advertising platform MoPub, and possibly allow its users to charge subscription fees to hit those targets.\nBut I'm not convinced those efforts will work, especially as higher-growth social media platforms like Snap's Snapchat and Pinterest are growing atmuch faster ratesthan Twitter.\nHowever, buying Tidal's streaming music platform and integrating it into Twitter's mobile app could be a game-changing move. Musicians could directly stream music from their profiles, and Twitter could launch a freemium version of Tidal as a new tab within its app. That ecosystem expansion, which would mirror Snap's addition of Discover videos, could lock in Twitter's users and boost its average revenue per user.\nTwitter also ended 2020 with a net loss, mainly due to pandemic-related expenses, but its profitability should improve significantly this year as its core advertising business regains its momentum. Therefore, Twitter could have easily justified buying Tidal as a necessary expansion of its business.\nThe bottom line\nI don't plan to sell my shares of Square anytime soon, but its abrupt investment in Tidal is a baffling decision. It makes less sense than its purchase of Caviar, and it would have been a much better fit for Twitter.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":24,"commentSize":14,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}