Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Paid subscription is a decent idea. Could he attract enough subscribers? Doing some "back of envelope" math to get to a $44 billion market cap...
The big question is what multiple to use. If we go with Meta's current revenue multiple, at $8/month he needs about 230 million subscribers. If we use a more generous multiple, say halfway between Salesforce and Microsoft, the subscriber count needs to be about 70 million.
The Meta multiple is probably too low, but the software company model is probably too high. He probably needs 1/3 to 1/2 of the U.S. population to get to the price he paid for Twitter, assuming no advertising revenue. That seems unlikely, although I've no idea how many overseas subscribers could be attracted.
What does Twitter offer that other platforms don't, that people would subscribe en masse? I'm asking legitimately because although I have a mostly unused Facebook account, I am not a social media user.
I don't know that people would subscribe for it, but Twitter was good for quick, short form information. Like, a lot of people would follow election results on Twitter, or use it for local news updates. In my field, "Library Twitter" was where people would share information about new articles or trends and network--a lot of people put their twitter handle on their business cards and their conference presentations. There's also Sports Twitter and Music Twitter (and unfortunately White Supremacism Twitter)--people can curate their feeds to find the community and the topics they're interested in.
I don't know that people would subscribe for it, but Twitter was good for quick, short form information. Like, a lot of people would follow election results on Twitter, or use it for local news updates. In my field, "Library Twitter" was where people would share information about new articles or trends and network--a lot of people put their twitter handle on their business cards and their conference presentations.
Could they do that just as easily on Instagram or another platform?
What does Twitter offer that other platforms don't, that people would subscribe en masse? I'm asking legitimately because although I have a mostly unused Facebook account, I am not a social media user.
I don't use Twitter or Facebook. I've always struggled to understand how these companies could be worth so much. I doubt Twitter could get tens of millions of paying subscribers, which was my point. The primary revenue stream(s) need to come from somewhere else. The question is... what is that "something else"?
Could they do that just as easily on Instagram or another platform?
Maybe, I know a lot of professional groups are trying out Mastodon, but it's not as user friendly and there's a big learning curve for that. Not everyone is going to end up on the same platform, which sucks for networking purposes.
What does Twitter offer that other platforms don't, that people would subscribe en masse? I'm asking legitimately because although I have a mostly unused Facebook account, I am not a social media user.
The main difference between the other platform is that Twitter is one of the 1st to offer API that allow people to integrate watchers and bots within the platform for linking and snippet comments under websites instead of taking you into their site. One of the main problem with FB is that many companies block FB but allow Twitter because many websites have Twitter API integration so you can see feeds from Twitter integrated within a website. Very useful for blogs, Instagram is essentially Twitter with images.
So it’s not easy for another platform to build API and extend it to the web.
Instead of adding a discussion and forum section to your website you can simply integrate with Twitter and any of your content updates will get announced on Twitter.
Maybe, I know a lot of professional groups are trying out Mastodon, but it's not as user friendly and there's a big learning curve for that. Not everyone is going to end up on the same platform, which sucks for networking purposes.
The main difference between the other platform is that Twitter is one of the 1st to offer API that allow people to integrate watchers and bots within the platform for linking and snippet comments under websites instead of taking you into their site. One of the main problem with FB is that many companies block FB but allow Twitter because many websites have Twitter API integration so you can see feeds from Twitter integrated within a website. Very useful for blogs, Instagram is essentially Twitter with images.
So it’s not easy for another platform to build API and extend it to the web.
Instead of adding a discussion and forum section to your website you can simply integrate with Twitter and any of your content updates will get announced on Twitter.
He said he's getting rid of the bots though, so does that change the above?
What does Twitter offer that other platforms don't, that people would subscribe en masse? I'm asking legitimately because although I have a mostly unused Facebook account, I am not a social media user.
You think this isn't social media?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
