From the amount that we mention Twitter it is clear that it is a tool we like to use in our office. Sometimes this may be for mindless fun, entertainment and keeping up with friends in other offices:
But we also use it as part of our jobs, it provides us with information about events that we might want to go to, keeps us up to date with what some of our bloggers are up to and so forth. So we obviously read this piece from the Guardian when it came through our readers today.
Charles is right, it is annoying when Twitter goes down, but it is equally frustrating when other free tools on the web break too, but it goes with part and parcel of using online tools when they are free.
But if people strongly feel that Twitter need money pushed into it, I do not think that charging people to use Twitter will be the correct approach. I have mentioned before that many people experiment with Twitter for a long time before actually using it ““ to charge people to tweet would only increase the barriers for newcomers. Charles notes that Twitter should could (edit) try and deter people from using it to leave it for those who need it. I totally disagree. But I feel the more the merrier; while one’s thoughts may seem unimportant to one person, they could be of vast importance to another.
However, Twitter could start to receive money from other ways, such as advertising. I know people do not want to adverts on Twitter, but surely it is the lesser of the two evils, having adverts or to paying to use the service?
- UPDATE -
Following Charles’ comment below and a re-read of the original post, it’s apparent that the outtake is focused on the developers using Twitter’s open API rather than the users themselves. This is much more viable and hides the charging element from the user base, instead targeting those who are developing services which aim to capture some of that audience – essentially, Twitter selling access to its Twitterers, rather than the service itself.
Nice piece – it really is a dilemma isn’t it? And we’re going to see it in the growing pains of any “free” utility which catches on so quickly it then creaks under the strain of it’s own success.
At what point do you start charging/accepting ads?
Would be interested in your thoughts on whether it could be funded (once the current VC cash has dried up) by donations? I set up http://www.twitterfund.com to see a) if people would donate or b) whether people would be comfortable donating in principle.
It’s early days – but I think donations would/could be much more preferable to ads/paying.
Chris
You didn’t read the article carefully enough. I considered two possible models (many more exist): (1) charge people to use it – great if you want to loe 90% of your users, I pointed out. (2) charge those who access it via APIs, which would mean in effect charge the makers of software like Twitterriffic that mean you don’t go to the website. And I pointed out that the latter model was used by Fraunhofer over its MP3 patents.
It would be nice if you’d reconsider – perhaps even edit – what you’ve written in the light of that, rather than promulgating an incorrect description of what I actually suggested.
Thanks for the comment and the clarification Charles, I’ve made an update to the original post. We’re definitely curious to see how Twitter resolves its architecture issues and look forward to your thoughts in the future.
I’ve noticed that there seem to be a couple of folk on Twitter who are following tens of thousands of other folk, I dunno whether they’re spam or not, but these are the guys Twitter ought to be charging.
Getting anthropological on yer ass, they could just limit free Twitter accounts to only being able to follow 150 or 200 other people, if you want to breach your monkeysphere, you have to pay.
Then again, one of the virtues of Twitter is its simplicity and adding a charging layer to it complicates the issue.
Thanks Chris (Reed!) – You’re right, everyone loves a freebie and but most people tend to dislike advertising, so where do you join the line? Your Twitterfund sounds interesting, let me know how the results go?
And in reply to Chris Gimour, that’s a good idea, as Charles mentions above, there are many models that Twitter could use to gain revenue to help the service but I agree, many of which do take away the simplicity of Twitter.