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

Twitter Blue for $8/Month

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#121

Post by ftio »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #76
ftio wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he wanted to say "No Ads" but didn't have enough data to commit to that yet, so he's anchoring on "half as many." Let's see how it shakes out.

Why do you think that?

From a user perspective it's messy and confusing. What does "half as many" even mean? The experience is only different in degree, not in kind. There's less value, both real and perceived, in such a position.

It's hard to imagine that the conversation started from "half as many." My hunch is that it started as "no ads" and somehow backed down to "half" for one reason or another.

A couple reasons I can imagine are: - They could've justified No Ads at the rumored $20 price point. Cut the price in half? Add half the ads back. - They want to make room for a $20 SKU later and need to reserve some features for it, which could include getting rid of all ads. - They want to anchor at "half" so that "No Ads" sounds even better if they change their minds down the line.

Or some combination of all those.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#122

Post by Waterluvian »

bombcar wrote: post #108
Waterluvian wrote: post #16

"Half as many ads" fascinates me deeply. Has a business ever publicly quantified how many ads you get? Does YouTube say, "we expose you to an average of x seconds of commercials and y pixels of static ads"? How do I know what half should be? We've all been there: "it feels like YouTube has cranked the ads way up lately..." Will "half" just become "full" when "full" gets doubled next year?

I'd love for it to literally be "half ads" - whereas Twitter Plebeian gets a full add, Twitter Bluesbros only see the top half of the ad. Could result in amusing ads where the top half is aimed at the richies and the bottom half has "stick it to the man" discounts that only poors would see.

That’s silly and hilarious and now I want to see it happen.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#123

Post by codemac »

cmelbye wrote: post #104
danpalmer wrote: post #14

The good: Twitter should not be editorally curating people through verification, making verification only about ID and being a real person is a broadly good change, as long as it's not necessary for participation. Brands, celebrities, those in the public eye could benefit from this. Needs to be implemented with care and ideally with a branding change so as not to confuse users as the semantics change. The bad: $8 is…

> $8 is way more than the profitability of an ad supported user. I don't think so. Twitter's ARPU from advertising in Q2 2022 was around $4.50. ARPU from advertising in the US was more than $14. Users likely to subscribe at $8/month (power users in western countries) are more valuable than average for advertising. No ads for $8/month would probably be a very bad idea.

Exactly, thank you. I was going to say - $8/mo per US user would be a failing ad business.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#124

Post by BurningFrog »

dieortin wrote: post #70
Waterluvian wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things I admire about Elon (which is saying a lot...) is that for whatever reason, he's ready to bet the farm over and over. Whether he's some genius tactician or an impulsive moron, he just bought Twitter and is poised to drastically alter it. "flies in the face of everything I understand about complex systems" indeed! Forgive me for this analogy but it's in the news: Imagine if NATO just said one day, "y…

I really don’t want to live in a world in which so much depends on impulsive individuals. Your example sounds like a nightmare. That’s no way to make decisions.

Sure, but impulses among individuals like Putin, Biden and Xi Jinping have much bigger impact.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#125

Post by geodel »

mikkergp wrote: post #44
memish wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does any price make no sense? "If you're not paying for the product, you're the product." Though to truly resolve this, they need 0 ads, not 50% fewer.

I think it's bimodal. Either Twitter is worth like 100$+ per month if you're a journalist/brand, or it's less than 0, and in Stephen King's case he's correct that Twitter should probably be paying him.

Yeah, I guess, he should disappear right now and negotiate a deal before coming back to Twitter.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#127

Post by bombcar »

bambax wrote: post #94

Matt Levine: > Musk wants to start charging people to have a little blue check mark next to their names on Twitter. I wrote yesterday about reports that the price will be $19.99 per month, but that seems not to be a final decision, and other numbers have been suggested. Also last night Musk was personally negotiating the price with Stephen King. “$20 a month to keep my blue check?” tweeted King. “[No], they should pa…

King made a comment about price, and Musk made a (relatively) good reply - by asking "How about $8?" he's framed it as a value proposition and now you have to either say "nothing, Twitter is worthless" or you have to come back with a dollar amount. It's a good framing move.

An obvious solution could be revenue-share similar to how YouTube does - post a viral tweet that generates $x in ad revenue for Twitter, receive some percentage of that. Make it available only to blues who pay and ... (Musk if you use this send me car or a rocket :P )

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#128

Post by BurningFrog »

thorum wrote: post #24

Blue checkmarks are not just about verification and extra features. They’re a status symbol. They mean you are cool and notable enough to deserve one according the shadowy and mysterious Twitter checkmark committee. If they become a commodity that anyone with a little money can buy, they lose a big part of their appeal to the average person.

This is day 5 of the Elon/Sink era.

I expect more changes are ahead that might address these concerns.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#129

Post by thebeastie »

ch4s3 wrote: post #72
thebeastie wrote: post #59

Bypass paywalls would be kind of a big deal imo. It could eventually shape how we use the internet and move away from ad based revenue.

This was definitely the part that stood out to me, but it really relies on the deals they can strike.

It makes sense. It’s ridiculous to have to subscribe to individual news websites when there are so many; an intermediary that did deals with publishers wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Re: Twitter Blue for $8/Month

#130

Post by tedunangst »

linuxftw wrote: post #38
Waterluvian wrote: post #16

"Half as many ads" fascinates me deeply. Has a business ever publicly quantified how many ads you get? Does YouTube say, "we expose you to an average of x seconds of commercials and y pixels of static ads"? How do I know what half should be? We've all been there: "it feels like YouTube has cranked the ads way up lately..." Will "half" just become "full" when "full" gets doubled next year?

You will be shown no ads from the hours of 8pm-8am, a bunch during your busiest times, or some such. In any case, how are people going to verify on their end they're getting what they paid for? Maybe in 10 years they'll have a class action resulting in everyone getting a dollar back.

Oh man, that's genius. Like a radio station that plays fifteen minutes uninterrupted at the top of each hour.
Post reply on HN