3 ms·
Why don’t they just charge for removing ads? Would get substantially more adoption.
by satya71 5y ago
Why don’t they just charge for removing ads? Would get substantially more adoption.
- dudus 5y agoSuper follows brings in additional revenue streams. Paying to remove ads reduces one stream to create a second one generating possibly minimal or even negative growth.
- uncoder0 5y agoI dunno... Worked for Twitch. Subscribe to a channel and no ads on their channel. They even used to offer an option to get no ads at all called turbo but Amazon canned that AFAIK.
- kadoban 5y agoSubs on twitch have other benefits though, both ~tangible (most depends on the channel I guess, but they all do) and social. What would twitter even have? If it's just a paid adblock, that's not exactly compelling.
- weird-eye-issue 5y agoI feel like removing ads plus any kind of visual indicator like a "Pro" label or some kind of icon next to people's names would be vastly more successful than Super Follows. Plus maybe adding in or or two relatively simple paid only features that have been requesting a lot (I don't use Twitter enough to know what these could be)
- dkdk8283 5y agoWhy would anyone pay when there is adblock?
- jsudi 5y agoBecause ad block does not work inside of apps
- wlpu 5y agoI can't speak to iOS as I'm not a user of it, but an alternative for android users is VPN apps that enable you to block ads, however apps that have such a feature aren't allowed on the play store or offer a feature reduced version to keep Google happy Regardless of the moral quandary, it is possible to do
- jazzyjackson 5y agoBecause if you allow people with disposable income to subscribe to ad-free tier, then the only audience you have to sell to advertisers is "people who can't even afford 5$ a month for twitter plus"