4 ms·
They could easily have a bunch of different badges that only appear on accounts of people who pay. A vanity item for sure, but if they had something like a 'st
by imron 10y ago
They could easily have a bunch of different badges that only appear on accounts of people who pay.
A vanity item for sure, but if they had something like a 'star user' that gave you a gold star next to you name if you pay $5 a year, they'd likely make millions from it too.
- egypturnash 10y agoOr how about * an I Support Twitter! star on your name/icon/whatever * AND NO ADS EVER
- rexf 10y agoYup, definitely room for a "Twitter Prime" subscription. Some vanity icon & no ads. On the plus side, users who pay Twitter monthly are less likely to be throwaway accounts.
- rrdharan 10y agoIf you have enough disposable income to pay for Twitter aren't you very likely also the most valuable target for advertisers?
- imron 10y agoWhat's Twitter's advertising ARPU? As long as they price the subscription higher than that they come out ahead.
- ropiku 10y agoBut that would be average across all users. If you remove valuable users the remaining ones will be worth much less to advertisers. There probably is some equilibrium at which point it's financially worth it but it could also piss up advertisers. Disclaimer: ex-Twitter employee, views own, etc.