Hacker News Reader

Comment by kybernetyk | Hacker News Reader

>Fewer than 1% of Twitter users are subscribed to Twitter Blue

A 1% conversion rate is pretty much what I would expect from an online business.

It does seem perfectly in line with the 1% rule[1] for social networks. In this case I'm not sure if a user is a content creator or not so it's a little unclear if this is 1% of 1% or 1% of all.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule

and its still more than the 0% it was before

Is that money worth the credibility they lost? The blue check used to be a status symbol, now accounts are putting out statements making it clear that they never paid for it.

Waging culture war against the blue-check class was one of his primary motivations for purchasing the site in the first place.

As long as that move doesn't somehow end up solely responsible for burning the site to the ground, I can't imagine he'll regret it.

Status symbol? The blue check used to verify that the notable person behind the account is who they claim to be. Now it lacks any meaning other than "I paid $8 for Twitter".

The old blue checks are grieving that they no longer have special treatment and their voices are no longer elevated. They are now just like the common plebs. It's an adjustment process.

> A 1% conversion rate is pretty much what I would expect from an online business.

When I was doing research on paywalls, this was my experience too, and some paywalls are much cheaper than $8/month. (Sites like Wired are always running random deals for $5 for an entire year.) Many sites came out of the gate at 1.5% or even 2%, but then dropped to 0.5% once all the fanatics were scooped up in the first few months. Pubs more often than not think their paywall or analytics must be “broken,” because they can’t believe the drop-off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com