Comments on: Twitter could make money by charging for followers http://www.socializedpr.com/twitter-could-make-money-by-charging-for-followers/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:14:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Marla Erwin http://www.socializedpr.com/twitter-could-make-money-by-charging-for-followers/#comment-1546 Marla Erwin Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:55:36 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/?p=489#comment-1546 Would companies be required to pay for bot followers? For "social media marketers" who follow 20,000 but are basically broadcast-only? For new users who click "follow all" when presented with a list of suggested accounts on signup? For anyone they follow who has auto-follow enabled? None of these seem quite fair. The way for Twitter to make money from businesses is to offer a suite of account management tools that the casual user doesn't need; essentially, CRM features that would enable a staff, not just an individual, to manage a large Twitter account. But it may be too late for that, as 3rd party vendors already have a huge head start on these features. Would companies be required to pay for bot followers? For “social media marketers” who follow 20,000 but are basically broadcast-only? For new users who click “follow all” when presented with a list of suggested accounts on signup? For anyone they follow who has auto-follow enabled? None of these seem quite fair.

The way for Twitter to make money from businesses is to offer a suite of account management tools that the casual user doesn’t need; essentially, CRM features that would enable a staff, not just an individual, to manage a large Twitter account. But it may be too late for that, as 3rd party vendors already have a huge head start on these features.

]]> By: David Barnes http://www.socializedpr.com/twitter-could-make-money-by-charging-for-followers/#comment-1545 David Barnes Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:23:40 +0000 http://www.socializedpr.com/?p=489#comment-1545 Twitter left it too late to do this. When they launched they should have said something like "up to 500 followers free!" then once you go over that, you pay a monthly fee for up to 1000, a higher fee for up to 3000, etc. The vast majority of users have fewer than 500 followers so pay nothing. On the other hand, those are the people that pro users want to reach. Those who have more followers than that must be investing quite some time in Twitter, so chances are they would see a monetary value in it too. Of course celebrity accounts get followers without making money. In such a case, Twitter could "sponsor" those accounts. But now what can they do? It's out there as free. There will be a riot if they change that. And as you say, it's impossible to tell what "commercial use" on Twitter means. I use Twitter to link to my blog, and there I encourage people to do business with me. Is that commercial use? Who can say? Twitter left it too late to do this. When they launched they should have said something like “up to 500 followers free!” then once you go over that, you pay a monthly fee for up to 1000, a higher fee for up to 3000, etc.

The vast majority of users have fewer than 500 followers so pay nothing. On the other hand, those are the people that pro users want to reach. Those who have more followers than that must be investing quite some time in Twitter, so chances are they would see a monetary value in it too.

Of course celebrity accounts get followers without making money. In such a case, Twitter could “sponsor” those accounts.

But now what can they do? It’s out there as free. There will be a riot if they change that. And as you say, it’s impossible to tell what “commercial use” on Twitter means. I use Twitter to link to my blog, and there I encourage people to do business with me. Is that commercial use? Who can say?

]]>