So who’s gonna pay $8 for Twitter verification?

Do you pay 8$ to be a tweeter.

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 32.1%

  • No

    Votes: 38 67.9%
  • Total voters
    56
secretagentdad

secretagentdad

Time to be a hoot.
BuSo Pro
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
1,227
Likes
1,145
Degree
4
Can you justify it as a business? Do you justify it?

Can someone else in this thread talk you into it? Is anyone dumb enough to try and post results?
 
If it actually ends up giving some boost in visibility/reach, like if your replies show up closer to the top of the tweet you're replying to or they're more likely to be seen by other verified users, then it will be an incredible opportunity.

Imagine being able to reply to someone with an article from your site and having a greater chance that they'll see the article. A retweet from a notable figure can single-handedly take a site to the next level (when you factor in the money from a big traffic spike, new followers, backlinks if it gets picked up by media outlets, and so on).

Speaking from experience, I can think of two projects off the top of my head where retweets from the right person, of the right article, end up being huuuge catalysts that massively changed the site's trajectory long after the traffic spikes died off.

If $8 a month takes you from 1/1000 odds to 1/100 odds of catching a big fish when you toss your line out then oh boy, I see that as a leveling of the playing field that we haven't seen in quite a while.
 
Potatoe said:
If $8 a month takes you from 1/1000 odds to 1/100 odds of catching a big fish when you toss your line
Click to expand...

If that's one of the benefits it's massively cheaper than Facebook boost just alone.

Only people crying about Elon are SJW liberals that have SMUGLY known for years Twitter was bias against the right.

Why they are pretending it wasn't is beyond bizarre. Surprise surprise the Lavender Mafia is crying about nothing as usual.

$8 is less than most people spend on Starbucks daily, same Lavender gang... I think the price should be $20.
 
[Not in reference to OP or anyone in this thread in particular,] I continue to be absolutely baffled about why and how so many people are so caught up on this. Elon has talked at length about the top priority being cutting down on the bots. It's pretty clear that his stated approach to the blue check mark situation is an attempt to solve that problem to whatever extent.
 
Twitter made $5.1 billion in revenues last year. That's $425 million a month.

There are 450 million monthly active users on the platform.

Consider Twitter to be your average Freemium platform with 2-5% conversion rate.

I'm taking 2% for calculation since a huge chunk of it is bots or small time individuals none of them who need a badge. I feel this is still very very generous.

Even then, it only makes $72 million. Around 17% of current revenues.

Is it worth antagonizing a lot of your vociferous and influential users (doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum they are in. They are influential and bring users to the platform) for this small chunk of revenue?
 
Hanuman said:
Twitter made $5.1 billion in revenues last year. That's $425 million a month.
Click to expand...
Revenue really doesn't matter. Anyone's that's ran a company knows this. It's about cash flow and profits. Elon has stated Twitter was losing $4 millions per day.


You can make a $1 billion dollars a day, but if you are losing $1.1 billion dollars a day - at some point you're going to have to correct the ship, cause those numbers don't add up.

The biggest expense of ANY business is always the humans. Once you get rid of the dead weight then you have to source additional sources of revenue.

The same people saying they are leaving twitter are the "I'm moving to Canada if Trump wins" gang. Those people haven't delete their twitter account because they know regaining those followers is more difficult. Just more virtual signally from the Lavender gang.
 
$8 a month does several things for Twitter. Too numerous and advantageous to list out here.

So yes, it's a great business model.

Anyone that doesn't have $8 a month... more than likely won't be the type of audience that would benefit from the new numerous advantages, anyways, and not his core target demo.
 
Yes, I would pay it, like how I pay $8 for a lot of smaller content creators like youtubers and podcasters through Patreon. Including the newspapers that charge more than that.

That is normal to me now, where it would seem absurd just 5-10 years ago when content was free everywhere.

I think this could end up being a defining moment in how the internet works. Going from ad driven internet to user paid internet. From algorithms and surveillance capitalism to open standard internet.

If Twitter succeeds, then what's stopping others from doing so?

Of course, an end to surveillance capitalism ads might negatively some of you, but overall it would be a great thing. It would also be great if ads went back to depending more on creativity and skill, than just telling a AI to use their spy-database to find someone to market to.
 
I'm paying. Elon is a weird on-spectrum guy, but he has real genius in him. I'm betting he will fix Twitter, and also I have a feeling getting in early on $8 may have benefit down the road.
 
Yeah I think I would pay it as well. $8 is small change but even a single major retweet of a post could bring significant value to you. So, given the time effort i'm putting into HARO links, $8 is good value for the chance to get a major retweet.
 
I will/would, only because I'm starting to get a little following on there, and more than one person has asked about a course or videos about X. I've seen a few times the effect of being mentioned in a popular thread or just a simple retweet by someone w/ 10k+ active followers.

I've seen how someone with 4k or so active followers can create a free hour-long video and make $1k from people tipping/naming their price.

I've seen a person sell a scraped database and make $50k in a week. Of course, it was formatted nicely and had a lot of additional elements, but still.

People are already sliding into the DMs asking questions. Cultivating a following just but tweeting about what I'm working on. 122 new followers in Oct, 107 new followers so far this month. It would be very easy to grow a following there if a concerted effort was put forth.
 
$8/month for verification on any major social platform is going to be a positive ROI for anyone using those platforms.

Plenty of people have paid much more in bribes to get the connection to get verified.

The main value came from that it was hard to buy though. This action will significantly devalue it I would think. Still, if I was on Twitter I'd certainly buy it.

It seems like quite the hassle to sell for only $8/month really though. Soon as you start accepting consumers' money there are entirely new suits of laws that govern conduct. Consumer protection laws come into place in many areas around the world soon as someone pays you money and one-sided TOS are no longer binding in the same way.
 
I find it interesting how we have many OPs for Yes, but twice as many voters for no.

Seems like the yes side is willing to talk about their reasons.

Any lurkers wanna lay the logic on us for no?
 
secretagentdad said:
I find it interesting how we have many OPs for Yes, but twice as many voters for no.
Click to expand...
I noticed that too.

I think there is a mentality that draws people into SEO where they don't like paying for stuff. It's why they'll continue working the hard way towards a goal instead of paying to skip steps. Long-term they value money versus time, when in fact it's time that's more valuable than money. I'd rather skip steps and pay someone to do something instead me doing the manual grunt work.

It's the "small business" mindset, hence whey small businesses STAY small.
 
CCarter said:
I noticed that too.

I think there is a mentality that draws people into SEO where they don't like paying for stuff. It's why they'll continue working the hard way towards a goal instead of paying to skip steps. Long-term they value money versus time, when in fact it's time that's more valuable than money. I'd rather skip steps and pay someone to do something instead me doing the manual grunt work.

It's the "small business" mindset, hence whey small businesses STAY small.
Click to expand...
And the funny thing that you guys are trying to teach us is that the money you put into the site usually invests into the domains value once sold. You never know how big you can go because there might be limitations but every money invested is a step closer to your true potential.

But we never seem to think big:surprised:
 
I'm not trying to teach anyone anything.

Looks like go pay up is carrying by force of op despite a sound election defeat....:neutral::neutral::neutral:

I think there's more to it.
All the marketplace vendors know, the lurkers on this forum are way richer than the ops.
Speak up and share your logic bros. Us peasants can't come up with a better reasoning than ur to cheap.
 
Last edited:
I'll speak up for my contingent of the 'no' crowd.

The business impact of my Twitter is 99% from DMs.
Blue doesn't impact my DMs, as far as I can tell.

There are probably some tertiary impacts (more reach means more followers means higher likelihood of someone responding to my DM), but those aren't a limiting factor for me at the moment.
 
secretagentdad said:
I find it interesting how we have many OPs for Yes, but twice as many voters for no.

Seems like the yes side is willing to talk about their reasons.

Any lurkers wanna lay the logic on us for no?
Click to expand...
Part of the issue is that you seem to enjoy speaking in riddles. I think you may be Rumpelstiltskin in disguise.

What you are asking is not clear. In the title you ask who is going to pay. In the title of your poll you ask who already pays. Then in your post you ask other questions, one of which implies the question,"would you pay for it if...?". Each of those questions can all have different answers.

You may get more people voting if you were to make the question clear.
 
Sutra said:
Part of the issue is that you seem to enjoy speaking in riddles.
Click to expand...
I agree with this statement too. I've stated that in the past to him. I have zero clue what he gains from that.

I always suspected it's a long-term ops to slowly destroy the discourse of impactful conversations. It might not be conscious due to some old Wickedfire programming.

Honestly it's fucking annoying, so I just scroll past his comments a lot.

This is the first time he's comment/question has been somewhat understandable, so I decided to participate. Otherwise I just carry on. Life is too short to pull out an ottendorf cipher.
 
I don’t make many threads cuz I’m kinda bad at effort posts and have some level of self awareness.

You guys are brutal savages.
Rumpelstiltskin running psy ops to shit up the board on purpose .......
I guess I should stamp my feet and fly away on my spoon to make some more shit threads or something.
 
Last edited:
I bought verification for a number of accounts associated with some of my sites. Tweet engagement is already up. Will look at effect on revenue in 3 months time but I can already tell it's massively more than $24 x number of accounts.

Fuck having to sign up for verification through iOS though!
 
I'm not since I don't use twitter but $8 is nothing. I also don't think $8 would stop anyone from spamming twitter. It'll discourage spammers but won't stop it.

IMO if he really wants to stop spam bots on twitter, accounts would be verified by government ID for persons and tax returns for corporations. Having to create a new LLC and register it with the state to get a new twitter account is going to be one pain in the ass. It is just another level of deference from spammers.

But we all know people who do this to get back on Facebook ads too. Doesn't stop anybody if they really try.

CCarter said:
The same people saying they are leaving twitter are the "I'm moving to Canada if Trump wins" gang. Those people haven't delete their twitter account because they know regaining those followers is more difficult. Just more virtual signally from the Lavender gang.
Click to expand...
It's called performance activism. It's only a performance and isn't real. It's kinda like how greenwashing isn't really eco friendly either.
 
Wait a sec so ur already making money with this? @Steptoe

I feel like such a slacker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back