3 ms·

the ad-based business model is as toxic for quality as being a public company dependend on quarterly results. if you have no other fallback revenue, you get pus

the ad-based business model is as toxic for quality as being a public company dependend on quarterly results. if you have no other fallback revenue, you get pushed in a very specific, user-hostile direction. google search as case in point, banner ads, etc., all broken promises. why not do what linkedin does? offer paid premium accounts. the 'verified' badge is already much coveted, so mark affluent users. re-sell short, unused twitter handles. cap the number of followers at say 500, above needs to be premium. want to persist your tweets longer than x months? premium. want to connect an official 3rd party app? premium. remove fucking ads? guess... and i am not talking about making this expensive, it does not need to be. earn enough money to keep the lights on with premium users. twitter has the best content on the net, so they're like HBO - but trying to make money like network TV. tl,dr: build a premium and 3rd party connector paid system, a mix of LinkedIn and Slack's models. don't like my idea? discuss.

wpietri 11y ago
I generally agree with you on the issues of advertising. The value of an eyeball or a click has been dropping for 20 years. The point of most advertising is to distract, which puts it in direct opposition to the point of most content. But I think search-related ads are a different thing. When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads. I think premium accounts could be great, but it's a tricky thing to get right. Part of the value of Twitter is audience, so anything that might reduce the audience is dangerous. You list several premium features that might have worked from the beginning, but now would be perceived as a loss by non-premium users, surely driving some from the platform and creating a wave of negative comment.
- pinaceae 11y ago
  tweaking those features to something that makes sense would be the job of twitter's leadership. and if making money wasn't tricky, well, anyone could do it, no? :)
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Imagine you are a designer or a developer at Twitter. Are you really going to believe that somebody 3 levels above you has the necessary skills and insight necessary to make those decisions?
- ksk 11y ago
  > When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads. Can you explain how twitter's in-stream ads are any different? You can apply any number of arguments that are identical to your Google one. "If I'm following News Outlet XYZ, telling me about News Outlet PQR can create value as they might have another take on this particular story". "If I'm following Pop artist M, telling me about similar Pop artists Q might be useful". You can also apply the other argument - "I know what I'm looking for just feed me the data and get out of the way" to both scenarios. You can break the activities down to - 1) Are you 'exploring' or 2) Are you just wanting to 'go to a particular data source X'. If you're exploring, of course you're going to be more open to other inputs, and in that scenario, ads - well not ads - but recommendations, are useful.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Sure. Search is me actively looking for something. E.g., I want to buy a replacement keyboard for my computer. My goal is to find something that somebody is selling. There, ads may be relevant to my direct intent. If I am reading a newspaper, I am actively trying to follow the writing on a topic. Somebody trying to sell me something is a distraction from that goal. Scanning newspaper headlines is in theory in between, in that I am searching for something interesting to read. But in practice, I am scanning a particular set of headlines chosen by particular editors who have an understanding of relevancy and story quality that is similar to mine. Paid advertising bypasses that judgment. So again, it works against my goal and for the goal of the advertisers. Twitter's in-stream ads are similar to that last case. I have carefully curated list of people whose words I want to read. If I am interested in some brand, I can just follow them. If I might be interested in something not in my feed, I can search for that something or ask people who follow me for help. Ads specifically bypass my meta-editorial judgment in hopes of manipulating my purchasing behaviors. I understand the theory that ads are providing new, relevant information, but I think it's mainly false in practice. We live in an age of effectively infinite free information with everybody able to publish, edit, and meta-edit. I've already selected a group of people who are telling me what I think I need to hear. Twitter is inserting the ads not because people are saying, "Hey, I need more relevant stuff." They're getting it whether they want it or not. If ads were really all that valuable, there would be sites where you could just get lots of ads, an online equivalent of the coupon circular. But ads instead mainly intrude on the content that you actually want, and there's no way to get rid of them, because places like Twitter realize that people don't actually want them.
ksk 11y ago
Well, ads themselves are toxic, because they aim to manipulate. But, on the other hand, they continue to propagate the illusion that consumers en masse are rational actors that always somehow choose the right product for their needs, or that they are even capable of choosing the right product. Given that illusion, you can always sell someone something that they think is valuable, even if its not. Products suck because people suck, is in essence the state of the capitalist world. :)

wpietri 11y ago

I generally agree with you on the issues of advertising. The value of an eyeball or a click has been dropping for 20 years. The point of most advertising is to distract, which puts it in direct opposition to the point of most content. But I think search-related ads are a different thing. When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads. I think premium accounts could be great, but it's a tricky thing to get right. Part of the value of Twitter is audience, so anything that might reduce the audience is dangerous. You list several premium features that might have worked from the beginning, but now would be perceived as a loss by non-premium users, surely driving some from the platform and creating a wave of negative comment.

pinaceae 11y ago
tweaking those features to something that makes sense would be the job of twitter's leadership. and if making money wasn't tricky, well, anyone could do it, no? :)
- wpietri 11y ago
  Imagine you are a designer or a developer at Twitter. Are you really going to believe that somebody 3 levels above you has the necessary skills and insight necessary to make those decisions?
ksk 11y ago
> When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads. Can you explain how twitter's in-stream ads are any different? You can apply any number of arguments that are identical to your Google one. "If I'm following News Outlet XYZ, telling me about News Outlet PQR can create value as they might have another take on this particular story". "If I'm following Pop artist M, telling me about similar Pop artists Q might be useful". You can also apply the other argument - "I know what I'm looking for just feed me the data and get out of the way" to both scenarios. You can break the activities down to - 1) Are you 'exploring' or 2) Are you just wanting to 'go to a particular data source X'. If you're exploring, of course you're going to be more open to other inputs, and in that scenario, ads - well not ads - but recommendations, are useful.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Sure. Search is me actively looking for something. E.g., I want to buy a replacement keyboard for my computer. My goal is to find something that somebody is selling. There, ads may be relevant to my direct intent. If I am reading a newspaper, I am actively trying to follow the writing on a topic. Somebody trying to sell me something is a distraction from that goal. Scanning newspaper headlines is in theory in between, in that I am searching for something interesting to read. But in practice, I am scanning a particular set of headlines chosen by particular editors who have an understanding of relevancy and story quality that is similar to mine. Paid advertising bypasses that judgment. So again, it works against my goal and for the goal of the advertisers. Twitter's in-stream ads are similar to that last case. I have carefully curated list of people whose words I want to read. If I am interested in some brand, I can just follow them. If I might be interested in something not in my feed, I can search for that something or ask people who follow me for help. Ads specifically bypass my meta-editorial judgment in hopes of manipulating my purchasing behaviors. I understand the theory that ads are providing new, relevant information, but I think it's mainly false in practice. We live in an age of effectively infinite free information with everybody able to publish, edit, and meta-edit. I've already selected a group of people who are telling me what I think I need to hear. Twitter is inserting the ads not because people are saying, "Hey, I need more relevant stuff." They're getting it whether they want it or not. If ads were really all that valuable, there would be sites where you could just get lots of ads, an online equivalent of the coupon circular. But ads instead mainly intrude on the content that you actually want, and there's no way to get rid of them, because places like Twitter realize that people don't actually want them.

ksk 11y ago

Well, ads themselves are toxic, because they aim to manipulate. But, on the other hand, they continue to propagate the illusion that consumers en masse are rational actors that always somehow choose the right product for their needs, or that they are even capable of choosing the right product. Given that illusion, you can always sell someone something that they think is valuable, even if its not. Products suck because people suck, is in essence the state of the capitalist world. :)