3 ms·

I dont't know if it's a stupid idea or how much they could make with it, but I've always thought it was an obvious business model to charge people who reach a c

I dont't know if it's a stupid idea or how much they could make with it, but I've always thought it was an obvious business model to charge people who reach a certain level of followers (say 1.000). They're clearly benefiting from having a Twitter audience. And of course, charge more as the number of followers goes up. If you dont upgrade, no more people can follow you.

diego 14y ago
The problem is that Twitter needs those users. A user with a ton of followers is a hit: Twitter shows those followers to people who sign up and don't know what to do. This is not the only hole in this idea btw. By the way, I'm sure this thread will be filled with suggested business models by people who have thought about it for five minutes, without knowing any of Twitter's metrics. There are really good reasons why Twitter gave up and went with ads.
- manuelflara 14y ago
  The thing is, nowadays, do you think any celebrity that frequently uses Twitter would stop because they have to pay $1,000/year (or way more)? They know it's a huge promotion channel for them. It may have been a bad idea in the beginning, but now Twitter's huge.
  - diego 14y ago
    Just run the numbers. For one, there are approximately 3M people with 1k followers or more. If they charged an average of $5/month, many (most) would simply not pay. A significant number of those people are international. Many of them did not even try to get followers. Even if all of them paid, $200m/year does not come close to justifying Twitter's valuation. Trust me on this, Twitter doesn't want to mess with the head of the distribution. The backlash would be terrible, and it would destabilize their ecosystem.
mikeryan 14y ago
The problem with this model is that you harm both the followed and potential followers if the user doesn't upgrade. Twitter's value (to everyone involved) is in its network effects, damaging that by adding a paywall just brings net value of the service down.

diego 14y ago

The problem is that Twitter needs those users. A user with a ton of followers is a hit: Twitter shows those followers to people who sign up and don't know what to do. This is not the only hole in this idea btw. By the way, I'm sure this thread will be filled with suggested business models by people who have thought about it for five minutes, without knowing any of Twitter's metrics. There are really good reasons why Twitter gave up and went with ads.

manuelflara 14y ago
The thing is, nowadays, do you think any celebrity that frequently uses Twitter would stop because they have to pay $1,000/year (or way more)? They know it's a huge promotion channel for them. It may have been a bad idea in the beginning, but now Twitter's huge.
- diego 14y ago
  Just run the numbers. For one, there are approximately 3M people with 1k followers or more. If they charged an average of $5/month, many (most) would simply not pay. A significant number of those people are international. Many of them did not even try to get followers. Even if all of them paid, $200m/year does not come close to justifying Twitter's valuation. Trust me on this, Twitter doesn't want to mess with the head of the distribution. The backlash would be terrible, and it would destabilize their ecosystem.

mikeryan 14y ago

The problem with this model is that you harm both the followed and potential followers if the user doesn't upgrade. Twitter's value (to everyone involved) is in its network effects, damaging that by adding a paywall just brings net value of the service down.