A business model for Twitter: Pay up
The Web spirit of "build an audience and figure out the business model later" is a great filter. It allows products and services into the wild without barriers or the need to sell advertisers on an unproven concept.
Those who can build an audience, such as Twitter and FriendFeed, and before them Google, Facebook, and dozens of others who turned into giants, have the scale to develop monetization schemes that a loyal and fanatic user base won't summarily reject.
In the case of Twitter, the service is a hit, attracting millions of "tweeters," many of whom won't appreciate ads slipped into their Twitter stream.
Here's a solution. How about paying for what you like to use. Much of what gets sent via Twitter is a form of self-advertising. If you like Twitter so much, how about paying $5 a month for the privilege. Of course, the fee would have to include a quality of service guarantee and rebates for downtime. And, you would expect the owners of the Twitter or other services to be priced transparently and competitively, or at least reasonably if no serious competition exists.
In fact, why aren't people willing to pay for what they use? Public radio has the same problem, hence the tedious pledge drives.
A mere $5. Around here, that's less than a day's worth of coffee, a bacon cheeseburger with fries, a lowly beer, and maybe soon a gallon of gas. And you would get unlimited "tweets" and the service doesn't go down, or at least it's up most of the time.
From its inception, the Web has been about free (not like beer) and mostly advertising-supported. You might you say, those $5-per-month fees could add up. You might be paying $25 per month for services you like to use, free of advertising or with ads. Then back off on the steak burritos, country omelets, beet salads, beers, or the bags of popcorn at the movie. The subscription model could work, despite its checkered history.
Dan Farber is editor in chief of CBS Interactive News, which includes CBSNews.com and CNET News. He has more than 25 years of experience as an editor and journalist covering technology. E-mail Dan. 
Admittedly, if Twitter moved to a paid model, I'd probably pay for it. But I wonder how much value would be left after the mass exodus that would likely take place?
The movie studios arent any better when it comes to dvds. Now, i admit I go along with the premise that, there's a certain amount of money involved in the production of mass market DVDs. I like the packaging and i usually only buy the "Special Edition" because i like watching the behind the scenes stuff after i enjoy a film. That said, whats the deal with me downloading movies for about the same cost as a DVD and having it "delivered digitally"? DVDs cost money, albeit, nowhere near the amount they gouge me for, and I'm usually willing to pay. Are you trying to tell me that it's perfectly to charge me the same premium on a product that requires no ink, no plastic, no stamping process, oh and alot of the times, no extras??? Are you kidding me? But thats capitalism, thats what people will say. Other people will say.. "Well, what can you do?" What can i do? I can refuse not to pay, I can look for free and cheaper alternatives, and thats what happens with these Web 2.0 plans. The consumer is just tired of being scammed.
There seems to be some double standard where consumers are wrong because they find something offered for free then they argue when it's monetized. There ar plenty of reasons why alot of business models can not be applied to certain things. Twitters simplicity and it being free is its success, it's that simple, take away one or the other and people get bored and frustrate and move on. I summarize my argumet with this: If you went home and enjoyed sex with your wife/girlfriend for free and you found value in it and then one day she decided to monetize and charge you for services @ $5 a pop would you do it?
Or like so many other services in life would you look for the free alternative?
(Maybe i should have written my own article... eep...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/171921968/
I'd pay $5 a month for FriendFeed. I wouldn't pay anything a month for Twitter. I might have paid $5 a month for Twitter before FriendFeed, but only if they'd added a "hide" feature.
@WendyPiersall:
Great, a great idea -should Yahoo grab Twitter ;-)
A paid membership option to increase the reach of your tweets (allow them to occasionally appear in the streams of users with relevant interests not yet following that user), avoid advertising and allow unlimited tweets (yes, others would have to have some--hopefully high--limits) would be taken up by many of the wanna-be twitterati.
But what they want more than anything, now, is ubiquity. Their niche is sizable and growing, but not mainstream. Mainstream is needed first.
Then, I think $2 a month sounds like a good model... this is on par with Flickr's pro services. Really, Twitter needs to get a piece of my SMS bill that goes to AT&T -- they it would be getting a lot more.
TNSTAAFL, ain't that true.
- by CascadiaCommons February 24, 2009 1:33 PM PST
- The idea of paying for every service the Internet has to offer only works if money is not scarce. While we are talking about internet 2.0 and 3.0, we talking about paying for that service with money 1.0. As long as money is issued by banks (principle + interest) there will never be enough to pay for all the services we enjoy. With money 1.0, if I'm going to pay for Twitter, I'll need a credit card at a low interest rate or I could do what the author suggested and stop eating. Or better yet, I won't use Twitter. Beer and food get me more enjoyment and stamina than Twitter.
- Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)In an ideal world, where money is not scarce - where money is tied to my reputation and capacity to provide, then I could pay for Twitter. I could pay for Twitter, beer, food, and whatever I need or want as long as I am able to hold up my end of the bargain.
http://www.openmoney.org.