Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 333 posts

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#11

Post by mromanuk »

tw04 wrote: post #2

Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".

> “A project of our size needs at least a few hundred million dollars per year to keep going”

They have 550M MAU, using a freemium model and assuming a 1% payment conversion, that's 5.5M monthly paying users. With a price ranging $1 to $10, that can be $66M ~ $660M ARR, at least they can try.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#12

Post by synthmeat »

csmattryder wrote: post #10

Please just let me pay for it. I pay 12EUR/yr for email, it's ad-free and works. Happy to do the same arrangement for a IM service.

Telegram has incredible and large cryptocurrency scene. I honestly think this would fly, if they would accept cryptocurrency as payment as well.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#13

Post by szszrk »

tw04 wrote: post #2

Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".

A paid telegram would be crippled from large part userbase. I would not be able to convince anyone from friends and family to use it if it were paid - they can't see the value before installing.

Without them I would not pay for it as well.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#14

Post by davidweatherall »

ObsoleteNerd wrote: post #4
tw04 wrote: post #2

Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".

I’ve used Telegram for years now, along with almost all my family and friends. I’m a huge fan of it, and it’s basically the only IM I use anymore (other than Signal with some tech friends). If Telegram adds ads, rather than offer us a chance to just pay them, I’ll delete it instantly and push everyone I know to do the same. I absolutely despise ads of any kind, and go to a decent amount of effort to block them from a…

Are you happy with services that have ads, but give the option to remove them for a subscription fee?

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#15

Post by user-the-name »

tw04 wrote: post #2

Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".

How much do you think they could charge, and what percentage of their users do you think would pay that?

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#17

Post by fullstop »

ObsoleteNerd wrote: post #4
tw04 wrote: post #2

Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".

I’ve used Telegram for years now, along with almost all my family and friends. I’m a huge fan of it, and it’s basically the only IM I use anymore (other than Signal with some tech friends). If Telegram adds ads, rather than offer us a chance to just pay them, I’ll delete it instantly and push everyone I know to do the same. I absolutely despise ads of any kind, and go to a decent amount of effort to block them from a…

I would not mind them monetizing large public channels or selling sticker packs. If I ever see ads in my 1:1 or small groups, though, that's the end.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#18

Post by chii »

szszrk wrote: post #13
tw04 wrote: post #2

Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".

A paid telegram would be crippled from large part userbase. I would not be able to convince anyone from friends and family to use it if it were paid - they can't see the value before installing. Without them I would not pay for it as well.

it's quite "easy" to solve that problem - you as the person who wants to convince others to use, would pay up front for the app for them.

To the family member, it's free (of course, you do tell them you're paying). But when they find that it's good, they would also pay to recommend it to their friends.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#19

Post by zpeti »

cyrksoft wrote: post #5
tw04 wrote: post #2

Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".

I use Telegram a lot and would gladly pay for it. However, that route is not so easy. People in Latin American countries can't really afford to pay for apps. If they have to choose between a free WhatsApp (who everybody uses) and a fee (which can be high in real terms for poorer countries) they will choose WhatsApp. They can also do what companies like Steam and Netflix do, charge a differentiated fee by country. Som…

This is basically why Facebook doesn't offer a free option either, they make hardly anything from third world countries per user, but prob $50+ per year from USA users.

So - third world countries can't pay a subscription, and for USA its just not worth it because hardly anyone would pay $50+ a year to use Facebook.

Catch 22.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#20

Post by tw04 »

szszrk wrote: post #13
tw04 wrote: post #2

Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".

A paid telegram would be crippled from large part userbase. I would not be able to convince anyone from friends and family to use it if it were paid - they can't see the value before installing. Without them I would not pay for it as well.

I don't see that as being a hurdle. You make the first year free which, IIRC, is what whatsapp did.
Post reply on HN