Hacker News Reader

Comment by m52go | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why there can't be a social network that simply charges its biggest beneficiaries.

That is, make it free for every user until that user reaches a certain level of influence. That way, you can grow without charging anything and then charge those who a) value it the most and b) have the money & reason to pay to sustain their influence.

Why can't Twitter create a pricing model for everyone with over 1m followers?

Why can't Facebook keep its service free for consumers but charge organizations?

The massive power of huge social followings (organic reach--without ads) is worth so much but valued at ZERO by social networks. I think it's a huge missed opportunity that is resulting in diminished value for everyone.

View on HN

It's like peering. If you're that popular, Twitter is providing significant value to you, but you're also providing a lot of value to Twitter by being a reason for people to use the service (i.e. to read your tweets). Katy Perry needs Twitter a whole lot less than Twitter needs Katy Perry. Plus, not everyone popular on Twitter has a lot of money - a recent counterexample is Edward Snowden.

Yeah but I'm sure Katy Perry gets enough out of the service to pay it $10k a year. For example.

Total revenue would be lower, yes, but that should be matched by cost-cutting. These companies' head-counts are bloated compared to the services they offer.

I know there's a lot more to Twitter than the simplistic short-messaging system it seems to be from the outside (speed, scaling, etc)...but does it really need over 4,000 people to run it? I highly doubt it.

This sounds like charging someone to bring you business. Katy Perry convinces a lot of people to use twitter and still has to pay to bring in revenue.

If this was the same for car sales, why would anyone recommend cars?

Yeah but that's a very risky move. If even 50% of the power users pay, then twitter still loses 50% of it's key content, which costs it users, which then means the remaining power users are less interested in paying and so on.

$10k a year to keep advertising not sanctioned by Katy Perry's management off her Twitter feed might get a bite or two....

This is the wrong way round. Charging people to be popular on twitter would turn it into an advertising platform and drive away the most interesting grassroots users. The benefit flows from the popular 'content creators' to the people who follow but aren't themselves followed.

My own preferred model for charging would be the transferrable 'premium' account: essentially a visible flag on the account that anyone can pay for, like reddit gold. Encourage people to pay for accounts that they enjoy following.

Twitter could actually charge people to have their accounts Verified(assuming they are using their real names).

If that idea is successful, they could let verified users limit their twitstream to show only Verified users.

Then, perhaps, you might stop seeing most of the random crap posted by trolls, who can mob you today, even if they don't follow you and you don't follow them.

I thought they already charged some good amount of money to get that "verified" check, no?

I know someone with a verified status on Twitter and they did not pay anything.

I'd very much like to separate "paid" from "is using real name"; many of the twitter accounts I follow aren't people under their real names.

Yes, fair point. At the moment, "verified" means you are the real Donald Trump, or whoever, not a parody account. What would you be verifying if it wasn't an identifiable name (real name, stage name, etc)?

Under what I was suggesting, you would still be able to follow whoever you liked, whether verified or not. However, you would be able to block all the unverified users....

"Why can't Facebook keep its service free for consumers but charge organizations"

But that is exactly how Facebook works: they charge organizations money to reach relevant users. Users are never charged.

I was trying to say that organizations should be charged to be a part of Facebook, period. Whether they choose to advertise or not.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any advertising on Facebook. Just billions of people using it for free, subsidized by companies that pay to be on it.

That is pretty much equivalent. Those organizations would join Facebook for some reason. And that reason is to reach consumers. FB would end up giving orgs more powerful ways to promote Pages and then you end up with essentially ads.

But Facebook is free for consumers and costs for organizations. The reach is not valued zero at all, I have no idea what are you talking about, you just described the way FB works.

Without paying it's impossible to get your message out to your page fans, it doesn't work that way for long time anymore.

> Why can't Twitter create a pricing model for everyone with over 1m followers?

You'd essentially be creating an incentive to not gain popularity - I suspect that would stifle any kind of large-scale adoption.

Craigslist does this, to an extent.

I don't think there's ever been a social network that has successfully charged users to use it.

Suicide Girls? NSFW ("Come for the boobs, stay for the community").

MetaFilter charges a membership fee, though they rely on ad revenue to keep it running. And it has to be pointed out that it was pretty close to shutting down last year (ad revenue was way down).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com