5 ms·
Matt Yglesias had an interesting idea [1] when he pointed out that instead of being obsessed with selling display ads in tweet streams they should have monetize
by Steko 14y ago
Matt Yglesias had an interesting idea [1] when he pointed out that instead of being obsessed with selling display ads in tweet streams they should have monetized the tweet streams themselves.
I wonder if it alienating Gaga/Bieber would turn out any better for them then alienating developers though.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/25/twitter_shouldn_t_become_an_advertising_platform_it_already_is_one.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/25/twitter_shoul...
[1] ... Twitter seems to clearly intend to move in the direction of becoming an advertising business.
It seems like a mistake to me, if only because as it currently exists my twitter feed is already full of what amount to ads. A lot of the culprits are people just like me—journalists touting our latest articles. Then you have various other media personalities, celebrities, and authors investing in their personal brand. You have food trucks telling you about their location and local restaurants touting specials and deals. Every big company has one or more corporate twitter accounts these days for PR and marketing purposes. Rather than selling lots of ads on Twitter, Twitter could sell itself as a service to the large number of people and firms who are already organically using it as an advertising tool.
Which is just to say that the Twitter user base seems ideal for a tiered pricing model. Most people on Twitter don't tweet that much, don't have very many followers, and don't particularly aspire to having a large number of followers. Then you have a relatively small minority of heavy users who are deliberately courting a mass Twitter audience. Just charge us! Let everyone with fewer than 500 followers use it for free, and then have a few tiers of pricing for people with large followings. Most people probably have no desire to pay for Twitter, but anyone who's bothered to amass 20,000 is obviously getting a lot of value from access to the Twitter audience and would pay for it. Meanwhile the broad mass of non-professional users could keep using a great no-charge ad-free service that creates the ecosystem pro users want to pay to gain access to.
- ssclafani 14y agoPeople who say that Twitter should just charge pro users don't get what Twitter is trying to achieve. Twitter doesn't want to be a million-dollar business, they want to be a billion-dollar business. They wont get there by charging users. Not even close.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- MBCook 14y agoOf course their plan to become a billion-dollar business could causes them to become a zero-dollar business. The problem is that they seem to be overreaching, and doing it in what may be a self-destructive manor.
- Retric 14y agoA 20% shot at a 5 billion dollar bushiness may be a perfectly rational choice on their part.
- Steko 14y agoPretty sure the list of companies that have made billions charging users is nonzero. Text messaging has certainly been driven by user fees. If you look at the tv market it's moved from primarily ad driven to primarily fee driven.
- debacle 14y agoYou're not going to make billions charging only ~10% of your userbase.
- Steko 14y agoIf you have a billion users and you charge .1% of them $1,000 that's $1 billion. If you charge another 1% of them $100 that's another $1 billion. If you charge another 10% of them $10 that's another $1 billion. That's $3 billion already and we're just playing with rough numbers.
- Ralith 14y agoHow large is Twitter's userbase?