5 ms·
That's actually a great idea, you charge the people who benefit the most from the service (IMO) and you charge more the more they benefit from it. It also corr
by Illniyar 10y ago
That's actually a great idea, you charge the people who benefit the most from the service (IMO) and you charge more the more they benefit from it.
It also correlates to the amount of resources used - the more resource intensive a user is the more he pays.
It's also completely backwards to how social networks tend to work - you incentivize engagement not penalize it.
If it works it will be a genius move, if it fails it will take the company with it.
- goatherders 10y agoSince the company is on such a strong financial trajectory now...
- hulahoof 10y agoI think that is the parent posters point, most companies in the position Twitter is financially would go with a proven revenue model
- goatherders 10y agoNot to be snarky, but I would think most companies with 2 billion in revenue and no major manufacturing or inventory expenses wouldn't be in twitters position
- elastic_church 10y agoIt is, the speculators bid its shares too high. Its revenue model is pretty stable.
- Navarr 10y agofollowers is not a 1-1 indication of service benefit