collapse

* Recent Posts

ND Roll Call by MurphysTillClose
[Today at 01:15:18 AM]


Big East Poll and NET Rankings by bilsu
[Today at 12:57:57 AM]


MU Scoop Brian Wordle 12.9.22 by Dr. Blackheart
[December 08, 2022, 11:20:32 PM]


NM by ZiggysFryBoy
[December 08, 2022, 10:54:28 PM]


2022-23 NCAA Men's Basketball Thread by DoctorV
[December 08, 2022, 09:47:44 PM]


Remember, Remember, by DoctorV
[December 08, 2022, 09:44:29 PM]


Big East Results 22-23 by GoldenEagles03
[December 08, 2022, 08:55:53 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Twitter 3.0  (Read 9403 times)

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5722
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2022, 08:15:28 AM »
But would you pay a premium (say $10 a month) to be able to follow any verified accounts?  That would include not just people, but news organizations, etc.

No, I'm not paying $10 a month to see a link to an article that is already behind a paywall.  I've considered unfollowing the news outlets that paywall all of their articles.

No shot I pay for an ad to see an ad.

If twitter ever becomes a subscription model, I'm 100% out and so will be 75% of it's users.  Which will kill it.

mu_hilltopper

  • Warrior
  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7207
    • https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2022, 08:24:02 AM »
Thanks for the info.

I always thought Twitter was awful.   For once, I'm on the right side of history!

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9522
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2022, 08:24:24 AM »
No, I'm not paying $10 a month to see a link to an article that is already behind a paywall.  I've considered unfollowing the news outlets that paywall all of their articles.

Outrageous when businesses ask you to pay for some of their products.

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19260
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2022, 08:40:51 AM »
Thanks for the info.

I always thought Twitter was awful.   For once, I'm on the right side of history!

You and me both.   
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

dgies9156

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3594
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2022, 08:51:27 AM »
I've considered unfollowing the news outlets that paywall all of their articles.

Brother Hards:

If you don't pay for it, how do you expect someone to produce it?

One of the major problems with news organizations of all stripes has been the transition from paper or electronic broadcast to digital transmission over the internet. Too many readers think the content should be "free" to them. That's fine if the outlet can generate enough revenue from ad placements to make the site work. Sadly, advertisers too have found new and better vehicles to communicate their wares than traditional news organizations.

I'll grant you the quality of journalism has declined in recent years and news organizations frequently find themselves competing against new forms of journalism, often advocacy journalism from organizations promoting a cause or causes. Nonetheless, if you want objective journalism, you have to pay for it one way or another.

The Wall Street Journal's content is almost completely behind a paywall and it remains one of our nation's most successful publications.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2022, 09:00:08 AM »
Google has free search and paid search. It’s not all free. Charging a fee to post your content to reach millions is a commercial bargain, will remove many fake accounts (and multiple accounts…trolls will need an identifiable form of payment), and will improve content and targeting.

Stephen King cannot afford $8 per month to pump his books and movies? Oh, the woe and injustice.

Obviously King can afford $8/mo. He never claimed otherwise. He's not really using Twitter to promote his books and movies. On the one hand, he's one of a handful of authors who have no need of *any* publicity. His very existence is going to sell through books at a rate that 99.999% of authors would kill to achieve. BUT if he wanted to use Twitter to do so, he has the same option as all of Twitter's *customers* have, which is to purchase ads promoting his books and movies.

What King is aptly pointing out is that his contributions to the website, along with everyone else who logs in and tweets, is creating the traffic which Twitter turns around and sells to its customers--the advertisers. He's the product being sold and Musk wants to charge him to continue creating that product? That's what he's objecting to.

And, as was pointed out in the WSJ article quoted below, this whole endeavor is going to be a lot of sound and fury to contribute virtually nothing to Twitter's topline. It's the wild veering of a poster put in charge of a company with no guardrails. Musk just lurching from shower thought to ambien-fueled-fugue-musing and back again in the desperate hope that he can drive enough increase in cash flow to service the insane debt load he took on.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2022, 09:10:03 AM »
I've never twittered, and I've only read twits that someone I know links to.

I subscribe to the NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Athletic, Bloomberg, Seeking Alpha and Charlotte Observer. I also can watch Reuters, CNN, Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC and all the network news shows I want.

I can't imagine what I'd need Twitter for, but I'll be open-minded if someone wants to make a case.
"We have a severe problem in American life today called the assault on truth." -- Pulitzer Prize winning New Yorker editor David Remnick

CreightonWarrior

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2022, 09:14:16 AM »
Question about twitter:  Do content creators get paid by Twitter, like on other platforms?

(I know twitter people can get endorsements, get paid by 3rd parties.)
The world could use a lot less "Content Creators"

TSmith34

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4046
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2022, 09:34:47 AM »
Obviously King can afford $8/mo. He never claimed otherwise. He's not really using Twitter to promote his books and movies. On the one hand, he's one of a handful of authors who have no need of *any* publicity. His very existence is going to sell through books at a rate that 99.999% of authors would kill to achieve. BUT if he wanted to use Twitter to do so, he has the same option as all of Twitter's *customers* have, which is to purchase ads promoting his books and movies.

What King is aptly pointing out is that his contributions to the website, along with everyone else who logs in and tweets, is creating the traffic which Twitter turns around and sells to its customers--the advertisers. He's the product being sold and Musk wants to charge him to continue creating that product? That's what he's objecting to.

And, as was pointed out in the WSJ article quoted below, this whole endeavor is going to be a lot of sound and fury to contribute virtually nothing to Twitter's topline. It's the wild veering of a poster put in charge of a company with no guardrails. Musk just lurching from shower thought to ambien-fueled-fugue-musing and back again in the desperate hope that he can drive enough increase in cash flow to service the insane debt load he took on.

Right, it isn't that King can't afford it (obviously), it's that a blue check mark brings zero value to him. I would maintain that a better business model would be to charge the content creators via a tiered fee based on how many followers they have.

BUT, that only works if the content creators can monetize their efforts, and right now Twitter is awful at that, unlike Youtube, Tik Tok, Instagram, etc. No ad revenue is shared with the content creators, and even those with enormous followings can't directly monetize their efforts.

Musk is idiotically lurching about in public. This isn't an engineering company, so he has no idea what to do. His ego landed him a ridiculously overpriced asset that he has no expertise to fix. But thanks again for your money, Elon!
Pooba of Biggot Buffons

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5722
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2022, 09:43:13 AM »
Outrageous when businesses ask you to pay for some of their products.

I mean, if you want to misrepresent what I said, go nuts.  I pay for some news sites, but I weigh the value of each.

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5722
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2022, 09:46:33 AM »
Brother Hards:

If you don't pay for it, how do you expect someone to produce it?

One of the major problems with news organizations of all stripes has been the transition from paper or electronic broadcast to digital transmission over the internet. Too many readers think the content should be "free" to them. That's fine if the outlet can generate enough revenue from ad placements to make the site work. Sadly, advertisers too have found new and better vehicles to communicate their wares than traditional news organizations.

I'll grant you the quality of journalism has declined in recent years and news organizations frequently find themselves competing against new forms of journalism, often advocacy journalism from organizations promoting a cause or causes. Nonetheless, if you want objective journalism, you have to pay for it one way or another.

The Wall Street Journal's content is almost completely behind a paywall and it remains one of our nation's most successful publications.

Congrats on entirely ignoring the point I was making.  At least you and Pakuni have that in common.

Sultan Sultanberger

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8351
  • Send it in medium-sized fella!
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2022, 09:48:49 AM »
The world could use a lot less "Content Creators"


Why?
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9522
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2022, 09:50:03 AM »
I mean, if you want to misrepresent what I said, go nuts.  I pay for some news sites, but I weigh the value of each.

I mean, you literally wrote that you consider unfollowing sites because they have a paywall, no other reason. Not sure how that was misrepresented, but OK.

Sultan Sultanberger

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8351
  • Send it in medium-sized fella!
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2022, 09:56:42 AM »
I mean, you literally wrote that you consider unfollowing sites because they have a paywall, no other reason. Not sure how that was misrepresented, but OK.


He never said that it was outrageous that they are making people pay for content.  Just that he won't follow them on Twitter because he doesn't find their content worth the cost.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5722
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2022, 09:56:50 AM »
I mean, you literally wrote that you consider unfollowing sites because they have a paywall, no other reason. Not sure how that was misrepresented, but OK.

So, I already gain nothing from them except a headline.  The point was I'm not going to pay to be advertised to more than I already am.

If the model goes to subscriptions for users I'll just delete twitter.  They already get to advertise to me and get a ton of personal data.  Cash on top of that?  Nah, I'm out.

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11061
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #40 on: November 02, 2022, 10:04:23 AM »
Obviously King can afford $8/mo. He never claimed otherwise. He's not really using Twitter to promote his books and movies. On the one hand, he's one of a handful of authors who have no need of *any* publicity. His very existence is going to sell through books at a rate that 99.999% of authors would kill to achieve. BUT if he wanted to use Twitter to do so, he has the same option as all of Twitter's *customers* have, which is to purchase ads promoting his books and movies.

What King is aptly pointing out is that his contributions to the website, along with everyone else who logs in and tweets, is creating the traffic which Twitter turns around and sells to its customers--the advertisers. He's the product being sold and Musk wants to charge him to continue creating that product? That's what he's objecting to.

And, as was pointed out in the WSJ article quoted below, this whole endeavor is going to be a lot of sound and fury to contribute virtually nothing to Twitter's topline. It's the wild veering of a poster put in charge of a company with no guardrails. Musk just lurching from shower thought to ambien-fueled-fugue-musing and back again in the desperate hope that he can drive enough increase in cash flow to service the insane debt load he took on.

What Musk is trying to do is improve and verify the quality of that traffic, while monetizing the high dollar audience.  It's a Good-Better-Best model that every successful SaaS network has in different forms. The the cost of free is no more.

As to King, he is being a baby and two faced if he denies he is not on Twitter for self-promotion. Let's be real.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2022, 10:24:21 AM »
What Musk is trying to do is improve and verify the quality of that traffic, while monetizing the high dollar audience.  It's a Good-Better-Best model that every successful SaaS network has in different forms. The the cost of free is no more.

As to King, he is being a baby and two faced if he denies he is not on Twitter for self-promotion. Let's be real.

If all it takes to "verify" traffic is the payment of a subscription fee, then my bet is that the "value" of a verification tick will plummet because anyone (scam artists included) will have access to the thing for $8.

Besides, this it's NONSENSE for him to view this lever of monetization as worth pursuing. There are aprx 400k verified twitter users. At $8/mo, that's $38.4M/yr. at $20/mo that's $96M/yr. Twitter's topline was $5B. Wtf is all this smoke worth (maybe) increasing your topline by .07%?

Regardless, I think the practical effect of this pricing change is that anyone who does not *need* "verification" will simply drop it. The value that verification provided was not to the holders of the checkmarks, but to the other users of the site so they didn't get dunked on by parody accounts or scam artists. For that reason I'm guessing brands and journalists will maintain their checks, but every marginal public figure who is big enough to get verified but doesn't really need the checkmark will drop it. Stephen King, for example, derives no particular value from having the checkmark compared to not having it.

If he's trying to create GBB pricing tiers and is applying that to the users of the site, he's, again, conflating users with customers. Social media account holders are the product, not the customers. Charging people to consume their feeds is going to decimate his DAU numbers, which is the only thing he's able to sell for any amount of money that matters.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9522
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #42 on: November 02, 2022, 10:33:28 AM »

He never said that it was outrageous that they are making people pay for content.  Just that he won't follow them on Twitter because he doesn't find their content worth the cost.

But ... he didn't write this.
He wrote:
"I've considered unfollowing the news outlets that paywall all of their articles."
Nothing about the value of their content, etc. (He added that later). Just the mere presence of a paywall is enough.

Which, by the way, is totally fine. I just find it a weird kind of entitlement that people are surprised/unhappy when they're asked to pay for the product of others' labor.

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11061
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #43 on: November 02, 2022, 10:43:13 AM »
If all it takes to "verify" traffic is the payment of a subscription fee, then my bet is that the "value" of a verification tick will plummet because anyone (scam artists included) will have access to the thing for $8.

Besides, this it's NONSENSE for him to view this lever of monetization as worth pursuing. There are aprx 400k verified twitter users. At $8/mo, that's $38.4M/yr. at $20/mo that's $96M/yr. Twitter's topline was $5B. Wtf is all this smoke worth (maybe) increasing your topline by .07%?

Regardless, I think the practical effect of this pricing change is that anyone who does not *need* "verification" will simply drop it. The value that verification provided was not to the holders of the checkmarks, but to the other users of the site so they didn't get dunked on by parody accounts or scam artists. For that reason I'm guessing brands and journalists will maintain their checks, but every marginal public figure who is big enough to get verified but doesn't really need the checkmark will drop it. Stephen King, for example, derives no particular value from having the checkmark compared to not having it.

If he's trying to create GBB pricing tiers and is applying that to the users of the site, he's, again, conflating users with customers. Social media account holders are the product, not the customers. Charging people to consume their feeds is going to decimate his DAU numbers, which is the only thing he's able to sell for any amount of money that matters.

Google search consumers: Free.  YouTube: Free.  YouTube Premium: Fee.  YouTube Content Creators: YT takes big cut of ad revenue and about a third of member content donations. YT TV: Fee.

Musk is trying to do what Alphabet, Apple, Amazon and Meta do. There are vehicles for audience acquisition and vehicles for further monetization.

When you buy an audience for media, you pay via a cost per thousand. Why do I have to pay for crap, bots, trolls, negative posters who I don’t want smearing my product image, an audience who is not my target or is too political for my message. I want to pay for an audience I can target, who will buy, and one where I can better control my message.

4everwarriors

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15501
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #44 on: November 02, 2022, 10:55:32 AM »
Any twats heer? Any truth two da rumor dat Scoop iz gonna charge $20/month four a green check ✅, hey?
"Give 'Em Hell, Al"

CountryRoads

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #45 on: November 02, 2022, 11:05:24 AM »
I think $8 for a blue checkmark has the potential to be a fair price. People often underestimate how much power Twitter has when it comes to growing an online business and being able to show up in Search and the Timeline (and other benefits) will be more than worth it for some people.

The whole blue check mark thing is currently a complete joke as is. In order to get it now, you need to be both verified with ID (understandable) and also “notable.” What is the process for deciding who is and isn’t “notable”?

Musk said that celebrities will also get a secondary tag like politicians currently do. Stephen King will fall under that category anyway. So, this policy change isn’t really aimed at major celebrities like King.

If anything, I think this policy makes the platform more equitable and fair to people growing their business or personal brand.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2022, 11:08:41 AM by CountryRoads »

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5722
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2022, 11:12:42 AM »
But ... he didn't write this.
He wrote:
"I've considered unfollowing the news outlets that paywall all of their articles."
Nothing about the value of their content, etc. (He added that later). Just the mere presence of a paywall is enough.

Which, by the way, is totally fine. I just find it a weird kind of entitlement that people are surprised/unhappy when they're asked to pay for the product of others' labor.

But it was 100% your conclusion that because I considered unfollowing those sites that I think they should all be free.  Which is obviously not the case.  That was your conclusion that you jumped to.  But you just wanted to dunk, I get it.

Sultan Sultanberger

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8351
  • Send it in medium-sized fella!
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2022, 11:13:34 AM »
But ... he didn't write this.
He wrote:
"I've considered unfollowing the news outlets that paywall all of their articles."
Nothing about the value of their content, etc. (He added that later). Just the mere presence of a paywall is enough.


It was pretty clear what he was implying.  Sorry that you have to be so pedantic about everything.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9522
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2022, 12:08:04 PM »
But it was 100% your conclusion that because I considered unfollowing those sites that I think they should all be free.  Which is obviously not the case.  That was your conclusion that you jumped to.  But you just wanted to dunk, I get it.

Sigh ... I jumped to that conclusion because it's exactly what you wrote.
My apologies (?) for reacting to what was written and not what you now say you meant.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9522
Re: Twitter 3.0
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2022, 12:10:41 PM »

It was pretty clear what he was implying.  Sorry that you have to be so pedantic about everything.

Sultan ... lots of people here can call me pedantic (deservingly so, even) without a hint of irony. You're not one of them.

 

feedback