Even founder Bill Gates, who no longer has an active role, sees TikTok as a “poisoned chalice.” Microsoft now generates just a third of its revenue from “more personal computing” compared with 46% five years ago.
Twitter Inc. as a buyer makes much more sense. (It has had preliminary talks, according to the Wall Street Journal.) The obvious riposte is that the social-media company already had its shot with Vine,(1) and blew it, and shouldn’t waste its money trying again. That’s a reasonable assessment. Yet history shows many examples of companies that failed with its own products only to buy a similar service later at an inflated price.
The most famous is Google. Before the company was called Alphabet Inc. it had a service called Google Video, which struggled to gain traction. Had it stuck with the “we tried and failed” argument, it would have never bought YouTube — the year after Google Video launched — for $1.65 billion. That business has become one its most important beyond plain search ads.
In fact, the “if you can’t beat ’em, buy ’em” approach is a legitimate business strategy, and Twitter definitely needs some new strategies. The accounts with the top followers are Barack Obama, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry and Rihanna. Only one of those is younger than 30, and none are particularly hip for the younger than 25 crowd.
TikTok would be the perfect product to extend Twitter’s reach toward younger audiences, broadening not only its viewer base but the advertisers that want to reach them. It would also offer agencies and ad buyers a stronger alternative to Facebook Inc. and Alphabet, which do a better job of delivering ads to a wider demographic set. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Tae Kim noted recently that a surge in Twitter usage is unlikely to result in long-term solutions to its key problem: monetization. An integration with TikTok could create a cross-selling powerhouse of the likes enjoyed by Facebook and Alphabet
It would be easy to dismiss the idea because Twitter is too small, with a market cap of just $29 billion, compared with valuations for TikTok that extend as high as $50 billion. I’ve already written that TikTok, especially the slice of it Microsoft is bidding for, is worth nowhere near that.
More important, Twitter doesn’t need to be that big, it merely needs to be able to find the money to buy it. It has $7.8 billion in cash and short-term investments and brought in $762 million in free cash flow last year. Right now, cash is sloshing around the financial system, and it would be pretty easy to assemble a consortium of financiers willing to front the rest of the money. In addition, a purchase of TikTok would be such a positive driver for the stock that it could get away with selling equity, too.
Perhaps the biggest benefit in acquiring TikTok’s U.S. business, if not the whole thing, would be the chance to finally get a full-time CEO. A lot of purchases are just acquihires anyway. Kevin Mayer, the former Walt Disney Co. executive who was brought on to run TikTok, could act as co-CEO (or perhaps chief operating officer) alongside current part-time chief Jack Dorsey, who splits time with Square Inc. That would allow for an easy, face-saving exit for Dorsey sometime down the road.
And let’s face it, for Twitter investors, that management change alone would be worth whatever price tag is attached.
(1) Technically, Twitter bought Vine soon after it was founded and before the short-form video app launched.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Tim Culpan is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. He previously covered technology for Bloomberg News.
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion
©2020 Bloomberg L.P.