I couldn't shake the image of Twitter being an enthusiast, cool kids, wordsmiths only type platform from my head. Probably because I had an account since when Twitter servers couldn't take it and used to display a dolphin image(But, don't check my Twitter account, I didn't use it much) although I knew Twitter is not that anymore.<p>So, I always told to myself that like most other enthusiast platforms Twitter is struggling to make money unlike Facebook where its users don't care about non-contextual ads as long as its attractive and Facebook will go to any length to get a click on the Ad even if it means they are from a click farm from Philipines, Bangladesh, India; its advertisers didn't seem to mind as long as the 'Page Like' count increased.<p>But then, after I started using Reddit; I thought this is never going to make any money as it is a much more enthusiast platform than Twitter and every subreddit is a platform on its own where non-context content will be brushed aside. Then when Reddit introduced 'Awards', it blew me away; it seems like they have figured out the best possible way to monetise their platform. I don't know how much revenue it has brought to Reddit, but I could calculate some threads having thousands of dollars worth of awards almost every other day i.e. Normal users paying money for Internet commendation.<p>Twitter needs to figure out what's its equivalent for Reddit awards without compromising its integrity and becoming a Facebook.
I bet a $12/year "Editor" option that simply allowed those users to use <i>italics</i> would be widely used, generating $$$ without disrupting what people love about Twitter.
It might be too little too late. Twitter made a lot of sense in 2010 when you only saw messages from the people you followed, and only discovered new people when those people specifically put their words into your stream. It was valuable, even if people were tweeting about their vacations and sandwiches.<p>App.net tried to launch a paid version of Twitter and it almost succeeded, but they weren't able to get a critical mass to convert all at once. Twitter was still more valuable as 8 out of 10 of your friends were still on Twitter, not App.<p>It has changed though. With more users and the new algorithmic timeline, If you are just starting out, you have no chance at getting good value out. Twitter decides what you see, whether you like it or not. It's like the TV from 1984 that is continuously bringing junk food into your living room. You don't get a remote, you only get a choice to have it, or not to have it in your house.<p>Twitter used to deliver unprecedented value 1:1, and now it extracts value from 100,000 and delivers it to 1. Unless you are the one, there is no sense in paying for it.
I hate Twitter and think it’s a huge hassle and a waste of time, but I would pay for a domain verified Twitter handle / namespace that could be used for product feedback / support.<p>Ex: twitter.com/example.com<p>It would also be advantageous for incumbents to make a system like that the norm / expectation because it would reduce the gold rush effect for new platforms where people rush to reserve their handles.
> "We want to make sure any new line of revenue is complementary to our advertising business,"<p>I know the above probably means this is a longshot, but here's what I want from a subscription:<p>1. No promoted tweets
2. Permanently disable algorithmic timeline (what Twitter calls "Home")<p>That's it. I pay $12/month not to see ads on YouTube, and I'd easily pay that same amount for an ad+algorithm-free experience in the Twitter native app.
I always thought Twitter should just charge people to allow additional followers. So let's say your first 5k followers are free, and after that you need to pay some amount to let additional people follow you. Incentives are aligned with the vanity and self-promotion culture of Twitter.
I know people will hate this idea, but I would like to see what it would look like if they limited the amount of tweets a free account was allowed to send and even deprioritize those tweets to only show up on to their followers. Seems like it could curtail a lot of the toxicity. Obviously the other side of that coin is that it could limit discussions and interactions, but maybe it would show how useless a lot of the interactions are on the site.<p>Of course, I say this as someone who never tweets. I only use Twitter to aggregate news/interesting people. A bigger question is how can they make a user like me pay.
What I would like on twitter, and I would pay for it:<p>- Option to post 1 NSFW tweet, instead on that being per account<p>- My likes being private, and no one seeing them in their timelines<p>- not seeing anyone's likes in my timeline.<p>- not seeing any 'recommended' tweets on my timeline (tweets included because someone I follow, follow that account)
Charge for verified. 100 bucks should cover the cost of them actually verifying people, and allow us commoners to get access to the features currently gated off.
Could go something like this. Say Elon Musk, he will have a subscription tweet feed that users can subscribe to, all users of the subscription get to see the posts first. The free users will see them after 24hrs. Since twitters strength is real time, they can sell from that strength.