Slashdot Mirror


A Customer-Driven Business Model For Twitter (jeffreifman.com)

reifman writes: As revolving door of Twitter executives makes headlines and its $100+ million quarterly losses continue, it's not clear the company will survive the year without being acquired for a quarter of its offering price. The solution for Twitter's business challenges could be to adopt an engaging feature rich subscriber model that reaffirms its status as the platform of a global democratic communication hub. Here are fifteen ideas for Twitter to transform into a profitable user-centered business including integration of open source Signal for secure phone calls and direct messaging, Stellar for payments and domain mapping and blog hosting with your feed front and center.

65 comments

  1. blackberry, much? by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    me neither

  2. Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not being a shitty service catering to every whiny shitbag SJW on the planet would be a good start to recovery.

    1. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Make people pay to use Twitter.

      What could possibly go wrong.

    2. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're upset at malicious people getting themselves banned by spewing hate.
      banning hate-fueled assholes is the opposite of being shitty.

      Try to not be a stupid, reactionary, dead-ender. There's no future in it.

    3. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by sittingnut · · Score: 0

      there are better ways to judge whether someone is "stupid, reactionary, dead-ender" than your mere subjective assertion.
      one of the best is banning of people for their words.
      and twitter is banning people for not being politically correct, ie not being in line with the ideology of the secular 'liberal' establishment of the west. that makes twitter certainly stupid, reactionary, dead-ender. no wonder they are heading for dustbin.

    4. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're upset at malicious people getting themselves banned by spewing hate.

      No, the malicious people spewing hate are the ones getting others banned.

    5. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to not be a stupid, reactionary, dead-ender. There's no future in it.

      Unfortunately, the entire history of the human race would beg to differ.

    6. Re: Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just itching to hear the phrase 'ethics in game journalism' again. It's totally not about the social outcasts getting back at all the women who didn't and won't ever sleep with them, nope not at all!

    7. Re: Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? No. I got back at those women by pointing abusive but attractive slick douchebags in their direction. Now they're mostly single moms barely making ends meet and the ones that aren't have a potbellied and bald usually-drunk douchebag of a husband and several unruly brats... and are still barely making ends meet.

      To be fair these were the types they liked anyway so my steering may have made no difference.

    8. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      twitter is banning people for not being politically correct, ie not being in line with the ideology of the secular 'liberal' establishment of the west.

      Here's an idea - why don't we ban those people to prevent them from banning anyone ever again!?

    9. Re: Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's be honest - when your choice is down:

      a) "attractive, abusive, slick douchebag" who turns into a potbellied, bald, usually-drunk douchebag;
      and
      b) "potbellied, bald, neckbearded douchebag" who turns into a potbellied, bald, neckbearded usually-drunk douchebag who knows about computers

      I think the choice is OBVIOUS: c) Celibacy.

      No wonder you can't get laid, you fucking shitstain - the only difference between you and the douchebags getting laid is that you have no idea what "attainable" means. Hint: it's not a synonym for "the hot girl I want so bad that I've convinced myself I'm in love with her, but I'm too afraid to even look at her."

    10. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      You mean besides the realization people will never pay for a service like Twitter? Or that the world was never going to rise and fall with the fortunes of Twitter? Or that today's hot trend is next year's thing of the past?

      I'm sure except for the breathless anticipation of when Kim Kardashian is taking her next shit, the vast majority of people who used Twitter used it for about 2 months before they and their friends realized Tweeting that you were buying socks was a fairly meaningless endeavor.

      On behalf of someone who has never used it, always blocked it, and never cared ... whatever, the world keeps spinning, and nothing has changed.

      The reality is, Twitter never had a business model other than "ZOMG, it's Twitter!".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Only if by "spewing hate" you mean saying offensive things like "I disagree with you" or "I think the SJW argument is wrong."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    12. Re: Not being shitty would be a good start by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      It's totally not about the social outcasts getting back at all the women who didn't and won't ever sleep with them, nope not at all!

      And it's vicious hateful stereotyping like that that makes you SJW such epic hypocrites.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    13. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Just curious but can you name anyone who was really banned for just saying "I disagree with you"?

      Also, the following is a list of the kinds of tweets people refer to as "spewing hate". Which of these would you classify as saying offensive things like "I disagree with you" or "I think the SJW argument is wrong"?

      http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post...

      Is it the one saying she's a despicable whore? Or maybe the one saying that she should go kill herself because "feminists are a waste of air", or perhaps it's the one saying "Shut up bitch" (by the lawyer of Gamergate no less! I didn't know they had one!)?

      Those are the first three BTW. Maybe you'll have more luck finding a tweet that says "I disagree with you" there?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Those are only the ones hand-picked by the "victim," of course. How many others are reported every day for things like violating "safe spaces" (where any criticism is not allowed) or reasons like "Well, I perceived it as threatening" or "Anyone who disagrees with my position is obviously a racist/misogynist/homophobe," blah, blah, and whatever other such SJW silliness they've come up with today to silence dissenters? Twitter isn't saying.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    15. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness and to quote one of the tweets, that bitch really does need to shut up. She was told this by someone she engaged by attacking his community. Using mean words in RESPONSE is not harassment. It is a response.

      I don't hate her. I don't wish her harm. I judge her as horribly toxic and more damage to women than good.

      Plus... how many did she send to herself? We know she has a problem with this...

    16. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      Personally, I use twitter as a concise newsfeed of tech, infosec, and events by following people I'm interested in (eg thegrugq, landley, and briankrebs). The 144 character limit means I get a snippet of things, and (if there's a link) I can choose if I want more info. I even get a smattering of humor by following parody/humor accounts (eg BobRossGameDev, BoredElonMusk, and CommitStrip).

      Sure, just like any other social media site, there's shitty parts. That's what happens when you allow the masses to generate content. But you know what's awesome about Twitter? You only see stuff from accounts that you follow. You can mute/block accounts that you never want to see. The content is 100% up to you...dislike a content type or source, and you can easily remove it from your feed.

      I've used Twitter heavily for the past three years. I'd gladly pay a low ($1-$5) monthly amount to use it, especially if paying would remove stuff like promoted tweets (which I currently kill with an adblocker).

      I agree, tweeting about buying socks is pointless, just like a facebook status update about buying socks is pointless, or a tumblr post about buying socks is pointless. The medium of communication has zero to do with the pointlessness of any given content.

      The vast majority of the info I get from Twitter is more along the lines of "High-severity bug in OpenSSL allows attackers to decrypt HTTPS traffic --> link" and "Titan Souls is great example of picking small target audience and making a perfect experience for them. Great example for new devs." than it is about who is taking a shit or buying undergarments.

      Twitter may not have any value for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    17. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      So, just to be clear, you can't actually name anyone who was banned from Twitter for saying "I disagree with you"?

      Also, why did you put the word "Victim" in quotes? Are you saying that someone on the receiving end of the messages being sent is not being victimized?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:Not being shitty would be a good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another Gamergater shithead who lies about the other side and smears the people they victimize.

  3. $100m? by ickleberry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What do they spend these millions on? Taking ludes on a superyacht in the Bahamas?

    It is just a service that takes in bits of plaintext and spits them out to multiple users, most of them are using an app so no huge bandwidth cost (although still not as efficient as it could be) there is no valid technical reason for it to cost 100's of millions. A system like Twitter could be completely decentralised and P2P based and nobody would have to spend any extra to run it, the corporation behind Twitter doesn't serve any purpose as far as I can tell.

    1. Re:$100m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do they spend these millions on? Taking ludes on a superyacht in the Bahamas?

      According to one of the linked articles: " the losses are primarily due to stock-based compensation"

      In other words, Twitter is really just another get-rich scam for a handful of people. "Come work for me and I'll give you millions of dollars worth of stock. And if it bankrupts the company, so what. By the time that happens, we'll have already cashed out".

    2. Re:$100m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to figure out why Twitter has 4300 employees with 44% of them in "technical roles" What do they all do?

    3. Re:$100m? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It was started by one guy. One guy who built the current functionality (while he was working at another company). What do you need thousands of "technical" people for?

    4. Re:$100m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, leave it to an IT drone to grasp the scale challenges around a business like Twitter. Sorry it's not like the twenty servers you administer.

    5. Re:$100m? by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      Yeah managing one of the largest global real time platforms with ridiculous uptime requirements... why can't that be run by one rockstar devops guy with a beowolf cluster of servers at his disposal.

    6. Re:$100m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1892 people They create content... each has XX accounts and twits about their cats\dogs or local "news" all day long to meet 300 million active users quota...twitt twitt

    7. Re:$100m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear! Spoken like someone who has NEVER, in his life, managed any infrastructure more complex than a handful of Windows desktops!

      I bet you could run Twitter single-handedly, with 100% uptime.

    8. Re:$100m? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I more or less have. Technically there were three of us and I'd estimate our peek traffic to be about 1/50th of twitters scale, however the only difference between where I was and where Twitter is ... Is more hardware. The support structure for managing them is the same. They don't actually do ANYTHING special.

      A server works properly or it doesn't. When it doesn't, you replace it, and that done by the rack monkeys at the data center or at twitters scale, probably robots, either way that person isn't technical stuff, they are paint by numbers janitors that plug in color coded cables. My 2 year old could do that job if he could lift the hardware.

      And for the record, twitters uptime is absolute shit considering their scale, or do you just ignore the regular fail whale apperences?

      You must have no admin experience at all if you find Twitters infrastructure impressive.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:$100m? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I more or less have.

      Yeah, from your post - it's more "less" than "more."

      You must have no admin experience at all if you find Twitters infrastructure impressive.

      My team administers several thousand servers (~2200 at last count) in 3 datacenters. As I said, you must have zero experience managing infrastructure at scale if you think that there is nothing impressive about the scale of the infrastructure behind Twitter.

      Your argument amounts to: "I built a website once on my laptop. I'm pretty sure that scaling that up isn't a hard problem, I was able to serve two or three simultaneous sessions using my slick CGI scripts."

      The assertion that Twitter only needs a handful of technical people to manage and produce their infrastructure is ludicrous. And by the way, 2012 called - they want their shots about constant fail whales back.

  4. Why should anybody care about twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "global democratic communication hub" my ass.

    It's an online place for celebrities to primp and preen. Charge B.o.B 20 bucks to post about flat earth. Charge Neil deGrasse Tyson and his nephew 20 bucks to feed the troll.

    Or go away.

    1. Re:Why should anybody care about twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Charge B.o.B 20 bucks to post about flat earth

      "Once you go Flat, you never go back."

    2. Re:Why should anybody care about twitter? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They were positing $10/month. Good luck with that.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. "democratic communications hub" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately this is exactly what twitter is not. Since it has started to enforce its own policy more and more as time goes on it could be considered anything BUT democratic. It's not like the people are voting for the policy.

  6. Wow that summary was tortured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who writes like that? Did they ever go to school?

    1. Re:Wow that summary was tortured by edittard · · Score: 1

      Of course they did.

      Whether it was in Bangalore, Beijing or Birmingham[1], well, that's a different question.

      [1] Either one - it's equally applicable.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    2. Re:Wow that summary was tortured by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      No kidding! WTF is with all the biz-speak ?!

      ... engaging feature rich subscriber model that reaffirms its status as the platform of a global democratic communication hub.

      Twitter is freaking gloried half-baked "Instant Messenger" (IM).

      Reminds me of Office Space:

      WTF is PC Load Letter?

    3. Re:Wow that summary was tortured by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      "What paper jam? There is no paper jam!" Sadly my real life is like that no, I hate HP printers.

  7. Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have no clue how they can not be making money with a user base that huge and advertising on it. I'm utterly baffled. It's like the management want it to fail so it can be sold in an acquisition for far less than it's actual value to the people they rub shoulders with while they inflate their own salaries by huge factors with no comeuppance or risk to themselves personally.. ...

    Oh, right.

  8. How about let the fucking thing die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give Twitter's servers a firey death and be done with it. It's always been a shitty thing with no point and yes, if it shut down tomorrow, not a single thing of value would be lost.

  9. Customer vs Product by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    And what would the advertising agencies (ie, Twitter's customers) get for subscribing to them? Or have they been confusing their customers and their product again?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Customer vs Product by unitron · · Score: 1

      I think they're engaging in Dice-like thinking, that they want the site to work and to be a certain way (that involves lots of buzzwords), and they're finding it terribly inconvenient that the users, who are also the content providers who attract each other to the site, want something entirely else

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  10. Quickest way to kill Twitter by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Make it a "pay for play" platform. The second they start selling subscriptions for use is the second they start dying, and competitors snap up those leaving. It's simply not a valuable enough service provided.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Quickest way to kill Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a pay to be exempt from sponsored tweets? (Not that that could ever happen anyways.)

  11. $85/mo for cell service? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    I wish the guy said he paid $85/mo for cell service up front - would have demonstrates his disconnect from reality right there.

    $10/mo for Twitter would be $10 too much. I've already quit reading any Twitter feeds (noise to signal makes it a poor use of time) and just use a free HootSuite account to schedule enough of my own tweets to keep my marketing folks off my back. (I wonder if Twitter's traffic would drop on half if it disappeared from job responsibilities.)

  12. Freedom of speech meets the world? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its hard to contain or spin changes to terms and conditions on users to fit global standards for jurisdictions that have no freedoms.
    Users have a lot of traditional computing services for "work" or other than work activities to keep communications bland.
    A walled garden is great for a set of users with the same views who have to live under their theocracy, monarchy, court systems or repressive governments.
    The more a brand been about about open, free communications hopes to shape, contain, report, track freedom of speech, the harder it gets to attract interesting, creative people.

    Once the tend setters feel they are been herded into something chilling they will move on. The herd of users will follow to more free platforms that respect their views and thoughts.

    So what can future web 2.0 and social media creators learn?
    If you start your company in the USA, allow freedom of speech and let users speak their minds. The rest of the world can opt to join in or not.
    Users globally already have their own free gov sanctioned web 2.0 sites that are full of tracked accounts swapping everyday content.
    Once a brand clamps down on freedom of speech, can the user base from nations with no freedoms be a useful long term user base?
    Sell the amazing role of freedom of speech to the world, trying to keep censors happy just makes users look for any better platform.
    Also open the platform to other people and OS's. Having your brand all over brands hardware and software is a plus.
    As for profit, good to have that in place to that during the design stage, ready to go, not as a new project years later.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. "Nationalize" it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitter could easily be run by the government as a public service.

    There are a lot of arguments you can make about whether OUR government is responsible enough,

    but in my opinion, Twitter would run a lot better if the need to turn a profit was off the table.

  14. doomed by ooloorie · · Score: 2

    Twitter has been taken over by public relations firms, minor celebrities, and social justice warriors. Besides simple trolling, insults, and social signaling, its contents consist largely of republished headlines and self promotion. People aren't interesting in having that bullshit pushed on them in 160 character chunks, and they are certainly not going to pay for it. That's why Twitter is pretty much doomed.

    1. Re:doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus, instagram has boobs!

    2. Re:doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was ever different from that?

      Twitter has been taken over by public relations firms, minor celebrities, and social justice warriors. Besides simple trolling, insults, and social signaling, its contents consist largely of republished headlines and self promotion. People aren't interesting in having that bullshit pushed on them in 160 character chunks, and they are certainly not going to pay for it. That's why Twitter is pretty much doomed.

      Captcha: Socially

  15. It will be merged with YouTube and Facebook... by PapayaSF · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and the resulting company will be known as YouTwitFace.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:It will be merged with YouTube and Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best joke today. Bravo!

    2. Re: It will be merged with YouTube and Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean best joke of 2009, when Conan O'Brien originally told it.

    3. Re: It will be merged with YouTube and Facebook... by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      True, I didn't write it. Just thought this was a good time to tell it.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  16. Customer model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The solution for Twitter's business challenges could be to adopt an engaging feature rich subscriber model that reaffirms its status as the platform of a global democratic communication hub."

    As long as fucking Twitter fails to control it's SJW employee population and try to enforce its own internal 'policies', it will continue to lose money. Period. We're getting sick and tired of weak-ass Social Justice Warriors and their bullshit low-rank purely-for-idiots nonsense.

    Are you listening, Twitter?

    1. Re:Customer model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as fucking Twitter fails to control it's SJW employee population

      Translation: "I tried to troll people during GamerGate, and got banned from Twitter. FUCK Twitter."

      try to enforce its own internal 'policies'

      Translation: "I should be free to be an unfettered cunt whenever the urge strikes me."

      it will continue to lose money. Period.

      Translation: "I have no idea about how to make a business work, and I don't pay for shit because I'm a thieving leech."

      We're

      Translation: "I"

      getting sick and tired of weak-ass Social Justice Warriors and their bullshit low-rank purely-for-idiots nonsense.

      Translation: "don't like it when somebody calls me out for acting like a whinging child. Especially when it's on the topic of video games. So I'll call them names and invent a movement that I can claim backs me up. I'm a weak-willed simpleton."

  17. US gov damaged Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US gov recently deployed an extensive botnet onto twitter designed to break up groups on Twitter. Looks like it was a little too successful and is causing the business to fail. There is also speculation of tampering with traffic too, but no solid evidence yet.

  18. Re: $100m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep i didnt understand myspace nor facebook nor twiter. No content, only ad laden mix between irc ytalk and icq. Thx but fuck no...

  19. Well, I'm shocked ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Yet another service which made billions when it went IPO but which nonetheless has no real business model.

    I mean, why do people keep valuing these things as being worth zillions of dollars when they have no meaningful revenue? It's not like this is the first one of these.

    These things were never worth billions, and then all of a sudden people start to realize that, and everyone panics and goes all boo hoo ... on behalf of those of us who always thought Twitter was just another overhyped stock ... ha ha.

    That $18 billion IPO? That was always bullshit. And, as usual, the big financial institutions cashed out on day one, and the poor schmucks left holding the bag now can't understand why they're not making huge profits.

    I'm sorry, but if the stock market is going to continue to ignore basics like revenue, I'm going to keep laughing when people realize they've been conned.

    The IPO of a tech company like Twitter is a fucking ponzi scheme, and this was entirely predictable.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Well, I'm shocked ... by Piata · · Score: 1

      The weird part is I actually like Twitter. I find it much more useful and much less invasive than Facebook which has turned into a massive echo chamber for middle aged mothers that love Buzz Feed articles. There should be a viable business model there so I don't understand why they are floundering so hard.

    2. Re:Well, I'm shocked ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Their "viable business model" is .. what, ads or subscription?

      If people won't pay for subscriptions, and their ads hasn't been working, what other options are there?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re: Well, I'm shocked ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is exactly why FB is winning. Middle aged mothers buy stuff.

  20. Ride Sharing, or, Save the Taxis by popdookey · · Score: 1

    Twitter's single biggest mistake, in my humble opinion, was overlooking ride sharing. I don't want to use a paid ride sharing service where I don't know the people, the driver, or what kind of music I will hear during the ride. I would prefer to twit my ride and go with someone I know something about.

    They can monetize this quite easily by charging the regulated Taxi industry a small percentage when a twitter user summons their service and pays through their Twitter account. You don't always have a twitter friend nearby when you need a ride. It would be a shame to see a company with so much momentum and promise fail due to hubris.

    --
    Success without humility is an indulgence in arrogance
  21. AKA the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "an engaging feature rich subscriber model that reaffirms its status as the platform of a global democratic communication hub"

    FOAD

  22. Re: It will be merged with YouTube and Facebook.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cool thing was when I heard it live and immediately Googled the word to find zero results.
    It occurred to me that anyone who attended the recording before it aired might have of the joke already. Google spiders watch certain sites and index a post within minutes. Try it the next time you see a unique Slashdot headline or comment string..

    Days later there were some bloggers using it and someone even registered it as a half-joke.