$1/month for every 10k followers over your first 10k. Small price to pay for "fame". 1,000,000 followers is $99/month. You don't think Trump and the Kardashians would pay that for the voice it gives them to promote whatever they promote?
Twitter had $2.5B of revenue in FY '16. The average user with more than 10k followers probably only has slightly more than 10k followers (because the distribution of followers/user has most of its mass near 0), so the average rev. per 10k+ user is almost certainly less than $2/month.
So for this model to get TWTR near its current revenue, Twitter would need to have 104 million accounts with more than 10k followers. Twitter only has about 320 million MAUs.
If you think that the % of MAUs with 10k+ followers is closer 0.1%, then the avg. monthly charge would need to be $7,800/month.
exactly. They lost $546m in 2016. Take that divided by the 320m mau's, and you have $1.425 per mau per year. make it an even $2 per year and they are profitable. Assuming they value the service enough ;) I like your plan better though
Not to be snarky, but I would think most companies with 2 billion in revenue and no major manufacturing or inventory expenses wouldn't be in twitters position
There's no direct benefit to the spammer. More effort would go into pruning spammers (from those who are paying, spam protection services) and if twitter credited their account for any payments related to an account marked as spam it seems like it could work. Definitely an interesting model.
That's very similar to the situation with click-based advertising in search engines. I wouldn't say that it isn't working for everyone involved (except those who pay the ads).
Given that the major appeal of Twitter is the ease with which you can reach effectively unlimited numbers of people, I doubt that would be a very popular move.
It might be more feasible to charge people for following other people.
Or just offer a straightforward ad-free experience (maybe with some extra features) for a set monthly fee. Which is what I've wanted all along, but has the disadvantage of fracturing the userbase you can sell ads to and making Twitter a less valuable platform for advertisers, so they'd need a decent conversion rate to offset that.
I now absolutely hate this thing where the internet is made of free stuff and people won't pay for it. I know a load of people who practically live on Facebook but the idea of paying for it horrifies them. Do not understand that.
You don't get how business works, Trump does not needs Twitter, Twitter needs him and Kardashians. Twitter has already lost Kardashian followers to Instagram. As others have pointed out this fails to generate any revenue, let alone recoup cost of implementing this single "feature".
