Musky
Comments
-
Surely both. And the latter didn't pay because the former received revenue through advertising. Normally you pay for an advert-free service, but then you would pay to read not to Tweet.TheBigBean said:Question about Twitter. If someone has 100k followers on twitter, who is the net beneficiary?
Is it Twitter, because lots of people are using it to follow this person or is the person who can simultaneously write to 100k people?
If you think it is the latter then making them pay seems sensible.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Captain Kirk gets clicks for Mr Musk's advertisers. Wasn't so long ago that Musk was saying he would pay people who created content that got clicks, IIRC.
0 -
Directly financially? Twitter.TheBigBean said:Question about Twitter. If someone has 100k followers on twitter, who is the net beneficiary?
Is it Twitter, because lots of people are using it to follow this person or is the person who can simultaneously write to 100k people?
If you think it is the latter then making them pay seems sensible.
But it is Twitter, the person who is creating the content and also the people who are consuming the content who benefit.0 -
I'm not sure I fully follow that.kingstongraham said:
Directly financially? Twitter.TheBigBean said:Question about Twitter. If someone has 100k followers on twitter, who is the net beneficiary?
Is it Twitter, because lots of people are using it to follow this person or is the person who can simultaneously write to 100k people?
If you think it is the latter then making them pay seems sensible.
But it is Twitter, the person who is creating the content and also the people who are consuming the content who benefit.
If Celebrity A posts on Twitter, Twitter benefits because the fans of Celebrity A consume advertising; however, presumably Celebrity A also benefits financially by being able to promote whatever it is they that pays them.
If they can go off and access the same people through another medium e.g. Instagram, then they clearly do not owe Twitter, but I'm not sure it is that straightforward.
Noting that I rarely look at Twitter, making people pay to be verified doesn't sound outrageous. Presumably that would include all the corporate accounts that are used purely for advertising too.0 -
Celebrity A does not get any money for posting on twitter. They get the intangible benefit of increased awareness and a channel to promote their profit making endeavours.TheBigBean said:
I'm not sure I fully follow that.kingstongraham said:
Directly financially? Twitter.TheBigBean said:Question about Twitter. If someone has 100k followers on twitter, who is the net beneficiary?
Is it Twitter, because lots of people are using it to follow this person or is the person who can simultaneously write to 100k people?
If you think it is the latter then making them pay seems sensible.
But it is Twitter, the person who is creating the content and also the people who are consuming the content who benefit.
If Celebrity A posts on Twitter, Twitter benefits because the fans of Celebrity A consume advertising; however, presumably Celebrity A also benefits financially by being able to promote whatever it is they that pays them.
If they can go off and access the same people through another medium e.g. Instagram, then they clearly do not owe Twitter, but I'm not sure it is that straightforward.
Noting that I rarely look at Twitter, making people pay to be verified doesn't sound outrageous. Presumably that would include all the corporate accounts that are used purely for advertising too.
If you regard twitter as purely a way of advertising content that is available away from twitter, then sure it might make sense to pay to advertise on twitter. But who wants that?
If you regard the people posting as generating the content that twitter is using to put paid adverts amongst, then it makes more sense for twitter to pay the content creators, definitely not the other way round.0 -
Anyway, Elon has successfully made it so that however much sense it makes for people to pay for reach, they won't pay him.0
-
I was pretty staggered that during the days of Napster...That music got monetised again with the advent of music compression and the internet. There wouldn't be much of a music industry if everyone downloaded tracks for free. Thinking about it with regards Youtube and other streaming services, artists can't make as much as they did, even though some songs are getting billions of views.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is nobody likes to go backwards, but if a business isn't monetised in a sensible way, can it be made to be realistically profitable?
Will any competitors steal twitters swagger in meaningful way? I guess we will find out.
0 -
That's an interesting point. For example, I would see YouTube and TikTok as places where people make content and therefore both platforms need content creators.kingstongraham said:
Celebrity A does not get any money for posting on twitter. They get the intangible benefit of increased awareness and a channel to promote their profit making endeavours.TheBigBean said:
I'm not sure I fully follow that.kingstongraham said:
Directly financially? Twitter.TheBigBean said:Question about Twitter. If someone has 100k followers on twitter, who is the net beneficiary?
Is it Twitter, because lots of people are using it to follow this person or is the person who can simultaneously write to 100k people?
If you think it is the latter then making them pay seems sensible.
But it is Twitter, the person who is creating the content and also the people who are consuming the content who benefit.
If Celebrity A posts on Twitter, Twitter benefits because the fans of Celebrity A consume advertising; however, presumably Celebrity A also benefits financially by being able to promote whatever it is they that pays them.
If they can go off and access the same people through another medium e.g. Instagram, then they clearly do not owe Twitter, but I'm not sure it is that straightforward.
Noting that I rarely look at Twitter, making people pay to be verified doesn't sound outrageous. Presumably that would include all the corporate accounts that are used purely for advertising too.
If you regard twitter as purely a way of advertising content that is available away from twitter, then sure it might make sense to pay to advertise on twitter. But who wants that?
If you regard the people posting as generating the content that twitter is using to put paid adverts amongst, then it makes more sense for twitter to pay the content creators, definitely not the other way round.
I struggle to see the content that people create on Twitter/Instagram beyond self promotion and general chit chat, but I think that might be an unreasonable bit of prejudice from me.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Noting that I rarely look at Twitter, making people pay to be verified doesn't sound outrageous. Presumably that would include all the corporate accounts that are used purely for advertising too.
The current version of 'verified' simply means someone's got a phone and $8 a month: just at the time when he's trying to make income from it, he's devalued its worth.0 -
My "For You" tab is currently about evenly split between people i follow, cyclist close pass videos, Paul o'grady tributes and Figma interface design.
I have no idea what Figma is, or any interest in Web interface design, and don't click on any of them, but still they come.
The changes are so bad that a few more won't make much difference, as long as he doesn't take away the ability to only see people you follow.0 -
kingstongraham said:
My "For You" tab is currently about evenly split between people i follow, cyclist close pass videos, Paul o'grady tributes and Figma interface design.
I have no idea what Figma is, or any interest in Web interface design, and don't click on any of them, but still they come.
The changes are so bad that a few more won't make much difference, as long as he doesn't take away the ability to only see people you follow.
Yes, roughly my experience at the mo too. I mute any that I find particularly annoying, just in case it helps rebalance the feed.
I think the news of its demise is somewhat premature, but Musk seems to be doing all he can to kill it. One comment I saw suggested that its true value (as assessed by someone at the FT) was below the borrowing Musk undertook to buy it. Genius, if true. I guess the steering wheel is coming off this one too.0 -
It starts to look like actual desperation, or a wish to kill it. I can't imagine many of the businesses that have used Twitter will think it's worth $1000 a month, given the shrinking platform
0 -
Is driving it to insolvency the cheapest exit strategy for him personally?0
-
Nice trolling. Especially as it's on Twitter.
0 -
Twitter's definitely breaking... the 'For you' and 'Following' tabs aren't working reliably at all tonight... mind you, Musk will probably be along shortly to fire the engineers responsible and fix it himself.0
-
No one serious is going to pay for verification that isn't verification...
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Feels odd that they don't charge to simply verify someone's actual name. It would be harder to argue against that.0
-
He's a bit snookered if big businesses just simply don't pay.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Why?TheBigBean said:Feels odd that they don't charge to simply verify someone's actual name. It would be harder to argue against that.
We are the product.0 -
A blue tick doesn't add much value unless it means something.rick_chasey said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Feels odd that they don't charge to simply verify someone's actual name. It would be harder to argue against that.
We are the product.0 -
Right let's get the business model straight as neither you not musk seem to understand.TheBigBean said:
A blue tick doesn't add much value unless it means something.rick_chasey said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Feels odd that they don't charge to simply verify someone's actual name. It would be harder to argue against that.
We are the product.
The users are the product. The customers are the advertisers, who only like to spend money with twitter because they have so many users, and data about those users they can share and sell.
So, in order to improve the product, twitter needs more and more engaged users.
Most people use twitter to follow a handful of super tweeters, either celebrities, journos or the twitter-shelbs. There is a problem with impersonation, so having "verification" tags, helps people know they're following the right people.
So it improves the product, indirectly. Charging the product to do anything seems to entirely miss the business model.0 -
That *was* the business model.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
NYT have said they'll not pay the $12k pa for their blue tick.0
-
Well yes Musk is a car maker and payments provider, not a social media guru so it's not rocket science to work out he doesn't really get it. Pun intended.0
-
If people paid to be verified, it would be possible to include the function that you can only see replies from verified people. This would reduce the amount of anonymous "trolling" people see whilst giving Twitter revenues.
0 -
I think that would end up being a much smaller product.TheBigBean said:If people paid to be verified, it would be possible to include the function that you can only see replies from verified people. This would reduce the amount of anonymous "trolling" people see whilst giving Twitter revenues.
0 -
If Musk carries on in this direction with Twitter, I think one or two of its competitors have placed themselves well to benefit from its demise, which I think is getting more likely as his investors see revenues tumbling and putting their investment at considerable risk: they'll be the ones who pull the plug.0
-
It is just piggy backing on the porn industry by providing a platform for user generated content. The product is the audience as that is what the advertisers are buying.rick_chasey said:
Right let's get the business model straight as neither you not musk seem to understand.TheBigBean said:
A blue tick doesn't add much value unless it means something.rick_chasey said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Feels odd that they don't charge to simply verify someone's actual name. It would be harder to argue against that.
We are the product.
The users are the product. The customers are the advertisers, who only like to spend money with twitter because they have so many users, and data about those users they can share and sell.
So, in order to improve the product, twitter needs more and more engaged users.
Most people use twitter to follow a handful of super tweeters, either celebrities, journos or the twitter-shelbs. There is a problem with impersonation, so having "verification" tags, helps people know they're following the right people.
So it improves the product, indirectly. Charging the product to do anything seems to entirely miss the business model.
Twitter in 2021 had revenues of $4.4bn and make a $200m loss. $4bn of that revenue was from advertising. Industry reports suggest they have seen a YoY drop of 40%.0 -
Porn industry has moved on a bit from the tube sites and is now a money spinner in a different way.surrey_commuter said:
It is just piggy backing on the porn industry by providing a platform for user generated content. The product is the audience as that is what the advertisers are buying.rick_chasey said:
Right let's get the business model straight as neither you not musk seem to understand.TheBigBean said:
A blue tick doesn't add much value unless it means something.rick_chasey said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Feels odd that they don't charge to simply verify someone's actual name. It would be harder to argue against that.
We are the product.
The users are the product. The customers are the advertisers, who only like to spend money with twitter because they have so many users, and data about those users they can share and sell.
So, in order to improve the product, twitter needs more and more engaged users.
Most people use twitter to follow a handful of super tweeters, either celebrities, journos or the twitter-shelbs. There is a problem with impersonation, so having "verification" tags, helps people know they're following the right people.
So it improves the product, indirectly. Charging the product to do anything seems to entirely miss the business model.
Twitter in 2021 had revenues of $4.4bn and make a $200m loss. $4bn of that revenue was from advertising. Industry reports suggest they have seen a YoY drop of 40%.
There's a series of FT podcasts on the topic if you're interested. Weirdly, the payment providers (visa, mastercard) have become the defacto regulators for what porn can and can't be shown.0 -
I used to work with a web developer who said the porn industry was a trailblazer because they had to be, so they were early adopters of user generated content and then subscription models.rick_chasey said:
Porn industry has moved on a bit from the tube sites and is now a money spinner in a different way.surrey_commuter said:
It is just piggy backing on the porn industry by providing a platform for user generated content. The product is the audience as that is what the advertisers are buying.rick_chasey said:
Right let's get the business model straight as neither you not musk seem to understand.TheBigBean said:
A blue tick doesn't add much value unless it means something.rick_chasey said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Feels odd that they don't charge to simply verify someone's actual name. It would be harder to argue against that.
We are the product.
The users are the product. The customers are the advertisers, who only like to spend money with twitter because they have so many users, and data about those users they can share and sell.
So, in order to improve the product, twitter needs more and more engaged users.
Most people use twitter to follow a handful of super tweeters, either celebrities, journos or the twitter-shelbs. There is a problem with impersonation, so having "verification" tags, helps people know they're following the right people.
So it improves the product, indirectly. Charging the product to do anything seems to entirely miss the business model.
Twitter in 2021 had revenues of $4.4bn and make a $200m loss. $4bn of that revenue was from advertising. Industry reports suggest they have seen a YoY drop of 40%.
There's a series of FT podcasts on the topic if you're interested. Weirdly, the payment providers (visa, mastercard) have become the defacto regulators for what porn can and can't be shown.0
