3 ms·

New York Times says it won't pay for Twitter verified check mark

19 points by consumer451 4y ago

efields 4y ago
Anyone here paying or working for an org that pays? I’d love to hear some justification for those who are sticking with the platform.
jjeaff 4y ago
I was going to comment that $7 seems far too deminimus to even raise an eyebrow and refusing to pay it as a media org is rather petty. But from the article, I now see that Twitter is charging $1,000/mo for organizations. Still not a huge amount for someone as big as the NYT but that is a lot for most orgs. So I think Twitter is the petty one in this case.
- joegahona 4y ago
  There’s conflicting info flying around. Elon said somewhere that the “Top 10,000 organizations will be grandfathered in.” [1] Lots of publishers — Vox, Buzzfeed, Washington Post, CNN — now have a gold checkmark, which denotes an organization. I question whether they all signed up for the $1,000/month plan. I think Elon stripped the NY Times and kept them out of organizational status out of spite, because they publicly tweeted that they wouldn’t sign up. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/31/23664923/twitter-verification-for-organizations-free-for-most-followed https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/31/23664923/twitter-verifica...
raymondh 4y ago
How is charging for a blue checkmark any different from games that sell virtual merchandise for real world money? This is HackerNews. I would expect that more people would be interested on how a company like Twitter can monetize its services. As as long term share holder, it seemed to me like the company was being run as if it were a not-for-profit.
- consumer451 4y ago
  > I would expect that more people would be interested on how a company like Twitter can monetize its services. People are interested, this submission has many votes. It may not be a result that someone like a shareholder would like to see, but a result none the less.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jbothma 4y ago
  Are they actually verifying identity when you subscribe? If not, a little vamity badge doesn't represent much as a value proposition.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  Typically you charge for something that has value for your users. A blue checkmark that verifies that you are in fact the organization you say you are has value. But that's not what a paid checkmark is - @NewYorkT1mes can get a blue checkmark too. It's simply an indicator that you paid for Twitter, which in and of itself has very little value. (It's also some other stuff like boosting your tweets which has value, but the idea that the paid checkmark is anything like the old verified checkmark is a bait and switch).
walkhour 4y ago
Twitter must already know engagement is higher with the check mark, and thus worth the money for many orgs. I'm surprised the NYTimes is not paying and it's not clear to me whether it's because they think it's not worth the money or because of pride.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  They control engagement and they can make it higher for the checkmark. Hell, they can push engagement to zero for anyone who doesn't pay, and it looks like that might be the plan. The problem is that the set of people with the checkmark is small and (in aggregate) fairly terrible, and is mostly disjoint from the valuable content creators on the platform. Twitter has lost a lot of good users and communities, but it's still relatively usable and stable. It's not going to survive another artificial engagement squelch targeted at non-paying posters. So either Musk will do that and there's no reason to pay for a dead platform, or he won't do it and it's better not to pay him. But the real argument is that enough people refuse to pay, perhaps it will speed up the process of forcing Musk to back off from his current approach and instead focus on making the platform better for all users (and hence bringing back high-paying advertisers) rather than doubling down on this failing subscription idea.
xqcgrek2 4y ago
The NYT is barely relevant these days. Why is this even news?

19 points by consumer451 4y ago

Anyone here paying or working for an org that pays? I’d love to hear some justification for those who are sticking with the platform.

jjeaff 4y ago

I was going to comment that $7 seems far too deminimus to even raise an eyebrow and refusing to pay it as a media org is rather petty. But from the article, I now see that Twitter is charging $1,000/mo for organizations. Still not a huge amount for someone as big as the NYT but that is a lot for most orgs. So I think Twitter is the petty one in this case.

joegahona 4y ago
There’s conflicting info flying around. Elon said somewhere that the “Top 10,000 organizations will be grandfathered in.” [1] Lots of publishers — Vox, Buzzfeed, Washington Post, CNN — now have a gold checkmark, which denotes an organization. I question whether they all signed up for the $1,000/month plan. I think Elon stripped the NY Times and kept them out of organizational status out of spite, because they publicly tweeted that they wouldn’t sign up. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/31/23664923/twitter-verification-for-organizations-free-for-most-followed https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/31/23664923/twitter-verifica...

raymondh 4y ago

How is charging for a blue checkmark any different from games that sell virtual merchandise for real world money? This is HackerNews. I would expect that more people would be interested on how a company like Twitter can monetize its services. As as long term share holder, it seemed to me like the company was being run as if it were a not-for-profit.

consumer451 4y ago
> I would expect that more people would be interested on how a company like Twitter can monetize its services. People are interested, this submission has many votes. It may not be a result that someone like a shareholder would like to see, but a result none the less.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jbothma 4y ago
Are they actually verifying identity when you subscribe? If not, a little vamity badge doesn't represent much as a value proposition.
ryanbrunner 4y ago
Typically you charge for something that has value for your users. A blue checkmark that verifies that you are in fact the organization you say you are has value. But that's not what a paid checkmark is - @NewYorkT1mes can get a blue checkmark too. It's simply an indicator that you paid for Twitter, which in and of itself has very little value. (It's also some other stuff like boosting your tweets which has value, but the idea that the paid checkmark is anything like the old verified checkmark is a bait and switch).

walkhour 4y ago

Twitter must already know engagement is higher with the check mark, and thus worth the money for many orgs. I'm surprised the NYTimes is not paying and it's not clear to me whether it's because they think it's not worth the money or because of pride.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
They control engagement and they can make it higher for the checkmark. Hell, they can push engagement to zero for anyone who doesn't pay, and it looks like that might be the plan. The problem is that the set of people with the checkmark is small and (in aggregate) fairly terrible, and is mostly disjoint from the valuable content creators on the platform. Twitter has lost a lot of good users and communities, but it's still relatively usable and stable. It's not going to survive another artificial engagement squelch targeted at non-paying posters. So either Musk will do that and there's no reason to pay for a dead platform, or he won't do it and it's better not to pay him. But the real argument is that enough people refuse to pay, perhaps it will speed up the process of forcing Musk to back off from his current approach and instead focus on making the platform better for all users (and hence bringing back high-paying advertisers) rather than doubling down on this failing subscription idea.

xqcgrek2 4y ago

The NYT is barely relevant these days. Why is this even news?