4 ms·
He’s saying the price is bullshit, not that he can’t afford it. To him, it offers basically no value. While him being on Twitter does offer Twitter value. He’s
by oneoff786 4y ago
He’s saying the price is bullshit, not that he can’t afford it. To him, it offers basically no value. While him being on Twitter does offer Twitter value.
He’s probably right, although it doesn’t generalize to most celebrities who do have a vested interest in paying to promote themselves.
- mikkergp 4y agoCorrect, which is odd that Elon responded to him, "How about 8?"
- smackeyacky 4y agoI might be wrong but I read that as a veiled insult. i.e. "Are you such a povvo that you can't afford $20?"
- mikkergp 4y agoIf it is an insult it seems very defensive, and feels like he gave Stephen King the upper hand.
- linuxftw 4y agoTwitter offers him value, or he wouldn't be on it. Personally, I think they could charge $50/mo and most blue checks would pay it. I think Elon has the right idea, you gotta dip their toes in the water, then jack up the price later.
- ssully 4y agoOf course it offers him value, but Stephen King being on the platform is more valuable to Twitter than it is for King.
- bombcar 4y agoI wonder if that's actually true - if it is, King should go make his own Twitter-like thing.
- ssully 4y agoI think King is better served by continuing to write and live his life.
- brookst 4y agoI don't think it works that way? When Oprah is seen dining at a restaurant, the restaurant gets more value from the PR than Oprah gets from the meal. That does not lead to the conclusion that she should go open a restaurant.
- cdash 4y agoIt really isn't. These people are stuck.
- mecha_ghidorah 4y ago> Twitter offers him value, or he wouldn't be on it I mean yes, but that value might be so low as to not be worth paying for. Not even for the monetary cost, but for the effort involved in setting up the payment (entering card details, etc) and then checking your bill is what you expect for the rest of time. That tiny amount of extra effort might make twitter not worth it alone for some people, even without the financial cost. And even that yes it does offer value I'd qualify in that the value might ultimately on reflection be considered to be ultimately a loss on net. For example a heroin addict gets value out of heroin, but on balance the value they get (a fleeting pleasure) often isn't worth the damage done to their lives, but you could say "well it obviously offers value or they wouldn't be taking it". Note that I'm not claiming twitter is addictive or damaging like heroin, just trying to point out that "must have value because they do it" isn't really a solid argument a lot of the time
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- conductr 4y agoYou don't think $8-20/month of book sales are generated by King's twitter presence?
- lamontcg 4y agoHe can still tweet without a blue checkmark and people will still know who he is.
- pie420 4y agoAnd what will he do about the hundreds of "RealStephenKing" "OfficialStephenKing" "StephenKingTwitter" accounts that will spring up and start scamming people and linking them to fake websites? How much will that cost Stephen King?
- matthewdgreen 4y agoAnd if Twitter’s user experience degrades to the point where King can’t Tweet effectively without a blue checkmark, then the platform is deeply screwed.
- fundad 4y agoHis publishers pay skilled publicists