Twitter features that I'd pay for
Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has suggested that "Twitter's a success for us when people stop talking about it," perhaps particularly its business model (or lack thereof). Unfortunately, either it's a success and I didn't get the memo, or it still has room to improve.
Assuming the latter, here are a few things that I'd gladly pay to have added to the Twitter service.
- The ability to lock in my user name. Facebook just launched personalized namespaces, but added the unnecessary drama of name-squatting. I was early enough to Twitter (and Facebook) that I got my preferred 'handle' on both (mjasay). Given the importance of having a consistent name/brand across services, however, I'd gladly pay for the right to lock in my preferred name. (Speaking of which, whoever it is that has "mjasay" on AIM, I'll buy it from you.)
- Quality of service. Twitter is not a matter of life and death for me, but given how often the service has gone down, I'd be willing to pay for a premium account with a service-level agreement. This likely isn't a standalone feature for which I'd pay but as part of a larger subscription? Sure.
- Quality of experience. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails recently gave up on Twitter and other social media services due to the prevalence of "Metal Sludge" that hounds him. While I don't yet experience this on Twitter (except once and I simply blocked that person's Tweets and haven't seen or heard from them since), it's a daily fact of my blogging life. I assume it will come to Twitter, too. I'd happily pay to be able to pre-filter commentators that make their points in less-than-diplomatic fashion.
- Private Twitter communities. There are some things I'd like to tweet to friends and/or family, to business colleagues, etc. At present, however, I'm unaware of a service that lets me segment my "followers" to point tweets at certain groups. Rather than bore followers with personal shout-outs and what not, I tend to keep my tweets to lowest-common denominator content. I wish I could send different messages to different groups. I'd pay for that.
- Integrated 'long-form' communication. Sometimes a conversation is best continued beyond the 140-character barrier, but in many circumstances I'd prefer to keep it within the confines of Twitter, rather than giving out my IM or email addresses. It would be great to pay for an extended Twitter service that gives the option to open private chat rooms within Twitter to carry on a conversation that started with a 140-character tweet.
- Commissions on marketing leads. Dell makes over $2 million by distributing special offers through its @DellOutlet. There must be some value-added service that Twitter could provide to companies like Dell to help track leads sourced through its service? While this is something that I, the consumer, wouldn't pay for, surely it's something that Dell would?
I've been a harsh critic of Twitter in times past, but I've become a big fan. I'm enough of a fan that I'd happily pay for premium features that help me get more from my Twitter experience. How about you? What would you pay for?
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 




It's like sending sms for free, but with the added "feature" that everyone can read your outbox.
All the things you wish existed in twitter are long time features of email and IM.
Don't know if you've seen it yet but i found the "real life twitter" skit hilarious : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTN9We8unmU
- by WeCanDoBIZ June 17, 2009 5:50 AM PDT
- Given that 60% of new Twitter users don't come back again the following month and that Twitter's phenomenal growth is showing signs of leveling, I'd imagine that there simply aren't enough people who see the value in Twitter to warrant switching on paid services.
- Reply to this comment
-
(5 Comments)I've said for a long time that charging third party developers to use the API would be the most palatable revenue model. It would be earning money from those who make Twitter their business, forcing them to think of revenue models of their own. Most of all, the best of the third party applications could be paid for, but with users always able to access Twitter for free from the Twitter website. Some of the other apps could be ad funded. It might make the developers think harder about the value they're adding.
I know a lot of people would happily pay for TweetDeck.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz