Thought it interesting that an article about Salesforce's potential acquisition of Twitter was called "Twitter: Salesforce or the Abyss"
I mean, what's the difference really?
Twitter would not thrive under a company like Salesforce, as noted below - it has never really scored on any M&A deal, and doesn't have the profits or operating cash flow to invest to make Twitter a hot platform for advertisers and brands again.
What Salesforce would get, in my opinion, is user information on millions of people. That's both identities AND interests - which could fuel it's currently less than compelling Marketing Cloud AND Einstein offerings.
But at what cost? At around $15bn Salesforce would be taking a huge gamble - and numbers show focus on its core CRM products would go farther to continue driving demand than edge areas like analytics and B2C marketing.
For Twitter, however, it’s unclear if having Salesforce as an owner solves any of its core problems. Unlike Disney, Salesforce isn’t particularly well suited to build up Twitter’s streaming entertainment and news offerings. Unlike Google or Apple, Salesforce may not have the technical chops to build innovative features and address harassment. And unlike any of these companies, Salesforce doesn’t have a track record of being profitable.