undefined | Better HN

0 pointsres0nat0r3y ago0 comments

Some better takes on this from what I've seen:

https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1587381512500125699

> If one in five current blue ticks paid $20 a month that would raise just under $15 million a year for Twitter…Twitter’s current revenues (mostly from ads) are $5 billion a year. Musk’s apparent plan would generate about 30 hours’ worth of annual revenue.

https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1587509202401927168

> Absolutely no one should pay $8 or $20 a month to support Elton Murk's latest scam. Asking low-income Twitter users to pay $92 a year so their tweets don't get hidden and deprioritized alongside bots is not giving "power to the people."

0 comments

memish3y ago

"It elicits shrieks because it’s more about leveling the playing field than making money."

6 more replies

reaperducer3y ago

If one in five current blue ticks paid $20 a month that would raise just under $15 million a year for Twitter

Until suddenly there are yellow checkmarks available for $100/month, and red checkmarks available for $500/month, and enterprise-only green checkmarks for $5,000/month.

mmahemoff3y ago

What percentage of "current" blue ticks convert is not material since the TAM is about to become every Twitter user.

And the offering is not just about verification, but other Blue features. Personally I have no interest in a blue check, but I'd happily pay $8/month to remove ads (unfortunately only half the ads will be removed in this iteration).

type-r3y ago

not that i think this is some brilliant revenue strategy but it does not strike me as a good take to automatically assume that the current blue check mark base is a strict superset of who will pay $8/month

1 more reply

paganel3y ago

> Asking low-income Twitter users to

I'm curious how many low-income Twitter users now have a blue-check.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse