Why? Ads are one method of payment, cash is another. The weird model is paying more to remove ads. There should just be two tiers, free with ads, or paid without ads. If t former doesn’t make sense, only offer the latter.
This might be true if the cash payment was equal to the ad revenue per person, but it isn’t.
Ad-revenue per person would be a few cents per month, but even if it were $1 per user month, paying $4 or whatever to remove the ads means the ads are punitive. Pay the subscription or we will drive you nuts with shitty ads.
And in that case you probably have an argument against using that service, or perhaps monopolistic practices if they are a natural monopoly. For example, if your energy company charged you $1k to remove ads on your meter, I would completely agree that it’s an abuse of their position because it’s unrealistic for you to switch to another provider and there’s no way the ads are saving you that much off your bill.
My point is that ads should be allowed as a substitute for payment for services. Ad-free tiers should be an approximation of the cost to provide the service to you, with a reasonable amount of profit on top, as should the approximation of ad-revenue. In other words, those two numbers should be largely in-line with each other.
The main issue I have with ad-supported services is that they’re frequently a complete violation of privacy. In order to increase the value per impression for ads, they need information about you to serve relevant ads, which means they’re likely selling your data to advertisers (or a third party that handles ad personalization). IMO, there should be strict laws around that form of data sharing since that can present a very real security risk to the customer. That’s why I’m interested in projects like Brave (just an example, I dislike Brave) that seek to provide ads without the personal data leakage (i.e. Brave could do the personalization inside the browser, and advertisers would only know how many impressions they got and the level of personalized matching for those impressions).
I’m not against the idea of ad-supported tiers, but there should be strict rules surrounding them.
Oh absolutely. I think Twitter should be free for personal use and funded by commercial entities that use it since their posts are essentially ads themselves.
Basically, if you want to be authenticed (the blue check mark or similar), you should pay some recurring bill, like a payment per tweet or a monthly bulk cost. And in return, Twitter will periodically verify that you are you and notify you if your account is likely compromised. There can be different tiers for different types of users, from journalists to politicians to influencers.
I don’t use Twitter currently, and I certainly won’t start when they introduce subscriptions.
Hulu has somehow gotten away with it from the start, plenty of people don’t seem to mind. In my mind, if the network with greys anatomy has it in their contract that they are exempt from ad-free, what’s stopping other companies from leveraging their shows for that sweet ad rev?
Without the users, this platform has no value. No one is interested in it already, except for nazis, bigots, and crypto bros. Paying for this garbage makes no sense
Honestly, I don’t know what Jack Dorsey is waiting for. The instant Bluesky leaves its closed beta, basically everyone on Twitter is gonna jump ship, and Twitter’s transformation into Truth Social 2.0 will be complete.
The iron has been hot for a long while. What’s he waiting for?
How do they account for a service like privacy.com which allows you to generate multiple dummy card numbers for a single card?
If the cost of subscription is, instead, the barrier to entry then all we’ll end up seeing is parties who have the resources for wide spanning scams or propaganda or whatever it is - and if they’re paying then they expect to profit or score gains in some way that justify their costs, which likely means they’re effective at what they do
The solution here is simple and it’s the same as every other freemium service: milk the whales and serve ads to the plebs. Ideas specific to Twitter:
animated avatars
post borders
badges
early access to new features
ad few tiers
Iterate on that and you’ll reach profitability, assuming you start with a healthy userbase. The trick is to make them noticeable enough to stroke narcissists’ egos, but not so distracting that it turns into a clown show.
Basically, something like Reddit Gold, but broken up into multiple pieces. Those who don’t care can ignore it, and those who do can pay out of nose for it.
That Musk doesn’t see that just shows how clueless he is. He tried that with the blue check mark or whatever, but he completely changed the meaning behind it, which breaks a huge rule in UX, which is to not drastically change the meaning of existing functionality.
All I can say is. I agree exactly with your statement.
Im from South Africa and that was my initial like for the guy (no other knowledge than that he was South African) but as I got to see him more and more, learn about his background, I realised that he is nothing more than the classic South african rich kid or poes as we call em in SA.
Right around the point where he started calling people pedophiles for not letting him do some crazy thing, I saw that poes he always was, since then I have seen him become more and more of that poes.
I hope everyday he loses everything.
Poes is a vagina in South African Afrikaans but its used more of a diss than an the anatomical description, which would be a dis on vaginas at the comparison.
Musk wants to create a super app like WeChat. He needs credit cards first. He is turning Twitter into his old X.
It’s the Apple app ecosystem without people willing to hand over credit card information for iTunes music. Apple won the mobile phone market because they had customers willing to pay for apps.
Add comment