4 ms·
The monetization scheme for Twitter seemed so obvious to me — just charge to edit tweets. Something like $1 for a “5 edit bundle”. I would have easily probably
by tolmasky 3y ago
The monetization scheme for Twitter seemed so obvious to me — just charge to edit tweets. Something like $1 for a “5 edit bundle”. I would have easily probably ended up spending more than $8/mo with that. Beyond being just plain bad ideas, each of these new fees they’ve introduced leaves no ability for users to spend a lot of money. They're all one-time payments. And edits in particular would work great because:
1. It’s not functionality people were already used to getting for free, so they wouldn't feel like something was being taken away.
2. It's something people have been, quite vocally, asking for for a very long time, so you know that they, well, actually want it.
3. It doesn't lend itself to complaints because typos feel like they're “your fault,” and so it feels more understandable to pay to "fix your mistake."
4. And it can be billed as a pure convenience: "you can always just delete the post and repost it". Even though this misses the point that you lose your retweets, it just adds to point (3) that it feels like a hack they're allowing you to do to fix your mistake.
5. It doesn't negatively affect any existing user dynamics. When you charge a subscription, it's natural to feel like you shouldn't see ads anymore. "What am I paying for if I still see ads?!" This feature is completely orthogonal to every other existing revenue stream.
If they would have just done this at the beginning, I think people would have actually cheered it on, and it doesn't affect any existing user dynamics. No devaluing of blue checkmarks, no risking losing tons of users by making it a for-pay service, and again, there's no hard ceiling on how much revenue you can generate from a single user.
And guess what... a year later, they can still also offer a subscription that gives you 20 edits a month, or 300 edits a year if you pay all year up front, or something like that. So you can still get your subscription payments. And critically, unlike previously, you know what you're paying for. The messaging is simple and you can spin it as a user-friendly move: "Oh wow, the new edits feature is so popular, we decided it made sense to give people a way to get edits cheaper. Our new subscription pricing saves you money!"
- nine_k 3y agoI liked the idea of paid un-promoted tweets (can't remember where I saw it). Some people pay to promote their tweets. Other people pay to not see such tweets as promoted in their feeds. Both sides are happy to pay!
- bananapub 3y ago> The monetization scheme for Twitter seemed so obvious to me — just charge to edit tweets. Something like $1 for a “5 edit bundle”. what a weird thing to think. Musk paid $43 billion dollars for Twitter. previously it made something like $4 billion dollars a year, mostly from ads. what pricing structure for editing tweets do you feel will bring in > $4 000 000 000 / year?
- tolmasky 3y agoIt doesn’t have to do that, this is a way to get additional revenue. One of my points listed here is specifically that it is fully orthogonal to all existing revenue streams. My suggestion was not charge for edits and remove ads.
- bananapub 3y ago> It doesn’t have to do that, yes it does, since he's already destroyed so much of the advertising value and made paying for Twitter Blue poisonous.
- tolmasky 3y agoThe entire post is written in a “had they done this” format, and contrasted to things like charging for Twitter Blue. Clearly this is meant as “why didn’t they do this instead,” not “this is what they should do now.”
- Angostura 3y agoI think that's actually a very good idea.