3 ms·

This. Also, not only does Twitter have great brand recognition but also individual tweets can have far greater reach than Twitter's user numbers might suggest.

by skewart 10y ago

This. Also, not only does Twitter have great brand recognition but also individual tweets can have far greater reach than Twitter's user numbers might suggest. A lot of non-users see Tweets - embedded in news stories, shared around the internet, or shown on TV. And lots of non-users hear about things that happen on Twitter. That said, while that brand recognition and reach is scarce and hard to reproduce, it's not necessarily something anyone would want to pay a lot of money for. How would anyone monetize it? Twitter can't really control how many non-users see a tweet.

andy_ppp 10y ago
Maybe popular tweets inline with and advertisers brand could be sponsored; "@jonwhoever from Colorado tweets 'I have never had such a popular tweet about the mobile phone industry' brought to you by blackberry". I'm only slightly not serious about this :-)
panarky 10y ago
Problem #1: 90% of Twitter is shit [1] Problem #2: It's expensive to support millions of users who post shit Problem #3: Twitter's revenue base is too small for its cost base Solution: Eliminate advertising and charge $20 per 1000 tweets. Free to read, costs a tiny bit to tweet. People who post shit will disappear. People who have an audience and something to say won't bat an eye at this low cost. If this weeds out 80% of the shit while keeping 80% of the good stuff, Twitter will simultaneously shrink their costs while growing revenues to become a sustainable business. With this model, Twitter is a $1 billion per year profitable business [2] with a much higher signal-to-noise ratio. [3] Improve the signal-to-noise ratio and Twitter becomes THE place to be for all kinds of communities. That means a return to growth and higher rates per 1000 tweets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law [2] Start with 200 billion tweets per year. 90% are shit, and 80% of these go away, leaving 36 billion shitty tweets. 10% are good, and 80% of these stay, leaving 16 billion good tweets. 52 billion tweets in total, monetized at $20 per thousand is a billion bucks a year. [3] Signal-to-noise ratio before is 1:9, after it's 1:2.
- nowprovision 10y ago
  Disagree, I don't follow people who "post shit", I follow a few hundred people in the tech space (developers, devops, VCs, CTOs etc..) that I think are interesting (and dont post shit) and thus my twitter feed has very little overall shit. You curate your own feed based on who you follow, if you don't want to listen to whiney SJWs, or people twisting every word of Hillary or Trump then don't follow them (or unfollow them)..
- evo_9 10y ago
  You may not agree with this comment but it's intelligent and well argued. Seriously stop down voting on knee-jerk bullshit reactions. If you disagree and feel strong enough about it to do that, post a comment like nowprovision did.
- pbosko 10y ago
  Introducing mandatory charges for tweeting will probably hurt their user base and they'll lose some value. But they could always make a combined approach, having first 5 to X tweets per month for free.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  > Problem #2: It's expensive to support millions of users who post shit Is it? I always assumed all their money was plowed into moonshot development to try to find something, ANYTHING to make a billion dollar company (stuff they throw away within 12 months, like Twitter #Music) Just supporting their core functionality could be done with a fraction of the workforce, and could probably be profitable (although it would never satisfy the investor valuation)
- ctab 10y ago
  This is beautiful. You could add a "tip jar" to allow followers to support someone by buying Tweets for them, so that high-signal accounts would seldom have to pay that fee.
- thehenster 10y ago
  Interesting idea. Would you charge the same amount in poorer countries? Twitter's multicultural/multilingual user base is such a good thing.

by skewart 10y ago

andy_ppp 10y ago

Maybe popular tweets inline with and advertisers brand could be sponsored; "@jonwhoever from Colorado tweets 'I have never had such a popular tweet about the mobile phone industry' brought to you by blackberry". I'm only slightly not serious about this :-)

panarky 10y ago

Problem #1: 90% of Twitter is shit [1] Problem #2: It's expensive to support millions of users who post shit Problem #3: Twitter's revenue base is too small for its cost base Solution: Eliminate advertising and charge $20 per 1000 tweets. Free to read, costs a tiny bit to tweet. People who post shit will disappear. People who have an audience and something to say won't bat an eye at this low cost. If this weeds out 80% of the shit while keeping 80% of the good stuff, Twitter will simultaneously shrink their costs while growing revenues to become a sustainable business. With this model, Twitter is a $1 billion per year profitable business [2] with a much higher signal-to-noise ratio. [3] Improve the signal-to-noise ratio and Twitter becomes THE place to be for all kinds of communities. That means a return to growth and higher rates per 1000 tweets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law [2] Start with 200 billion tweets per year. 90% are shit, and 80% of these go away, leaving 36 billion shitty tweets. 10% are good, and 80% of these stay, leaving 16 billion good tweets. 52 billion tweets in total, monetized at $20 per thousand is a billion bucks a year. [3] Signal-to-noise ratio before is 1:9, after it's 1:2.

nowprovision 10y ago
Disagree, I don't follow people who "post shit", I follow a few hundred people in the tech space (developers, devops, VCs, CTOs etc..) that I think are interesting (and dont post shit) and thus my twitter feed has very little overall shit. You curate your own feed based on who you follow, if you don't want to listen to whiney SJWs, or people twisting every word of Hillary or Trump then don't follow them (or unfollow them)..
evo_9 10y ago
You may not agree with this comment but it's intelligent and well argued. Seriously stop down voting on knee-jerk bullshit reactions. If you disagree and feel strong enough about it to do that, post a comment like nowprovision did.
pbosko 10y ago
Introducing mandatory charges for tweeting will probably hurt their user base and they'll lose some value. But they could always make a combined approach, having first 5 to X tweets per month for free.
kalleboo 10y ago
> Problem #2: It's expensive to support millions of users who post shit Is it? I always assumed all their money was plowed into moonshot development to try to find something, ANYTHING to make a billion dollar company (stuff they throw away within 12 months, like Twitter #Music) Just supporting their core functionality could be done with a fraction of the workforce, and could probably be profitable (although it would never satisfy the investor valuation)
ctab 10y ago
This is beautiful. You could add a "tip jar" to allow followers to support someone by buying Tweets for them, so that high-signal accounts would seldom have to pay that fee.
thehenster 10y ago
Interesting idea. Would you charge the same amount in poorer countries? Twitter's multicultural/multilingual user base is such a good thing.