[dmethvin]

> why not just charge the superusers with tens of thousands of followers, like Mr. Jones, who really do get some tangible benefit from the service?

The big users with lots of followers are the ones who create the large audience for Twitter to reach. Right now those people create content for free, if you start charging them they are likely to leave.

If Twitter could create a model like Youtube where big content creators with lots of followers shared revenue, that would straighten out the incentives. There's a model here, it just may not be as big as Twitter thought it was a few years ago.

[roymurdock]

I disagree. I do not think Kanye/Reuters/Trump/Chipotle/Intel would bat an eye to pay for the privilege to get a message out to millions of users.

These individuals and companies are not looking for direct ad revenue from their tweets, as most Youtubers are from their content. Twitter power users are looking for indirect returns on their fame/infamy in the form of increased brand awareness and the ability to have highly visible, public conversations. In the case of the large corporations, they are also able to provide better customer feedback and support.

Reuters perhaps is looking to drive traffic to its website, but it will have to spend on Twitter if it wants to compete w/ other news outlets.

Twitter has the ecosystem, and now the ecosystem is as big as it will ever get with no added users over the last quarter. Charge the influencers and brand managers for the privilege of using the communication channel, just as a TV network charges companies for ad slots.

[melvinmt]

> I do not think Kanye/Reuters/Trump/Chipotle/Intel would bat an eye to pay for the privilege to get a message out to millions of users.

This "privilege" already exists: it's called advertising.

[volaski]

There are many cases where a social site shot itself on the foot and committed suicide by taking one bad move, such as Digg. What you're suggesting sounds like it will set a new record for a bad decision. Let's say Twitter does make that mistake and actually starts charging high end users. It is extremely naive to think most of these people will stick around and pay. Some will start leaving. Some new services will arise that claim to provide the service for free. Some of these "celebrities" will join forces to create a new "free" network (because that's what Web is supposed to be). Overall their userbase will decrease. And just as it grew exponentially after it reached critical mass, the reverse also applies, and at some point it will die at an exponential pace. It will probably end up looking something like MySpace.

[reitanqild]

Maybe let existing users continue like today and charge only for new users?

Personally I think twitters problem is much simpler: it is just a media/subset of biz/subset of tech thing.

The only thing twitter has over other services is brand recognition and a certain community.

On all other areas they are owned by both Facebook and even Google+

I remember being exited about twitter years ago: I saw lots of possibilities like "event streams" for automated processing, I thought they'd come up with a way to mark certain messages as mostly relevant for certain groups of followers etc.

What they did instead was focusing on painting themselves into the 140 revolutionary characters corner and keeping the paint wet from time to time by messing with the API etc.

[rchaud]

> I disagree. I do not think Kanye/Reuters/Trump/Chipotle/Intel would bat an eye to pay for the privilege to get a message out to millions of users.

Maybe, but it's not like substitutes don't exist. All of the big brands you mentioned maintain Facebook and Instagram pages (some have Snapchat as well) in addition to Twitter, and both of those have more users and a bigger audience than Twitter does.

If Kanye or Beyonce or whoever deactivated their Twitter, it wouldn't be long before others followed suit, which could create a snowballing impact of regular users abandoning Twitter to follow people to "where the action is", so to speak.

[CaptSpify]

I'm not a twitter user, but do/could they have a "advanced features for power-users" setup where they charge? Basically, if you have > 10,000 followers, you get a set of features that not everyone has if you pay up? That would incentives them not to leave, while also asking them to pay up

[ericras]

They essentially have that already - verified accounts have special features but Twitter gives those away for free.

[striking]

http://www.thewire.com/business/2012/01/twitter-verification... says:

> When he asked a Twitter sales rep who had been in contact with him how to go about it, she replied that the only paths to verification are if an account has had impersonation issues or is an advertiser who's spent at least $15,000 over three months.

[MollyR]

Seems weird its free, verified/verifying users could be a great service for lots of people. It could be a good way to make money too.