• gregorum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Since launching in early 2022, former President Donald Trump‘s Truth Social took in $3.7 million in net sales, and lost $73 million.

    The loss is, presumably, the amount of money they spent that year in operating costs, etc.

    In business, a loss is when a company’s expenditures are more than its income. It’s not like the money is “lost” as in “missing” or “lost in a bet” at a casino. Truth Social spent more money than it made in 2022, which means they operated at a loss for 2022.

    • skulblaka
      link
      fedilink
      251 year ago

      I find it hard to believe that a website the size of Truth Social (i.e. pretty small… They have a total of 2 million users, a generous 15% of them might be active. It isn’t Twitter) managed to rack up $73 million in costs over a single year of operation.

      I see two possibilities. Either whoever is hosting them is charging them a stupendously exorbitant amount of money to keep their website online, because they hate them or because they know they have Trump & Co in a vise and can charge whatever they want; or else a lot of “operating costs” look like the inside of various pockets. Perhaps both. Probably both, now that I think about it, though I suspect the latter quite a bit more.

      • @bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        161 year ago

        I run an instance of Lemmy with 300 users and it costs me about $223 per year.

        They have 6000x more users. So it should cost them about… $1.5m

        (Of course I know that’s completely unrealistic and things don’t scale like that. Just a fun exercise.)

        But yeah that’s way too much for a site that only serves 2 million people.

      • @buddhabound@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        It’s easy to do if it’s a grift for paying kickbacks by paying well over market rate for services that you can pad the numbers on easily.

      • gregorum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        There are a number of details in the article which explain where the money went. Did you read it?

        • There is nothing explaining expenditures at all. They state they downsized and eliminated development of VOD. They also said they probably cannot secure additional financing.

          I don’t find it that hard to believe they burned through that cash. It’s a lot of money but they probably signed massive deals with overpriced, incompetent consultants that subcontracted to overpriced, incompetent outsourcing.

          They probably also went nuts on infrastructure again through a few layers of b.s., each of which took a cut.

          Anyone who thought a site like this was going to be profitable in first few years, or really ever, is nuts. I mean the man ran a casino into the ground.