This guest post is written by Narendra Rocherolle, the cofounder of 83 Degrees. Previously he was the cofounder of Webshots, which was sold to Excite@Home in 1999. He and his partners purchased the assets back in 2001 and grew the company until a sale to CNET Networks in 2004.
Apparently it is true, Britney Spears is on Twitter, and while the transparency of her new media outreach has been questioned, having a celebrity of her magnitude using your service is undoubtedly a good thing.
Only, it could have been so much more.
You see, for Britney, Twitter is just another stop on the social media PR train — blog, MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, et. al. Twitter has had ample opportunity to lock in its disruption by enabling a subscription option for publishers. As a Twitter user you should be able to designate your own service model for those who follow you: free (default), pay only, or freemium.
With a pay only model you could set the price someone would have to pay to follow your Twitter stream, could be monthly, yearly, or one-time. For freemium, followers would pay for premium content that the publisher could designate with a leading $ when they post.
Twitter could collect some percent of the revenue generated.
Why would this work?
First, Twitter has created the simplest publishing platform available. SMS is content publishing that *anyone* can do and this opens doors previously closed by technical overhead.
Second, Twitter possesses two characteristics that historically have had intrinsic “value” — it is mobile and it is real time. In the entertainment space, this is golden.
Third, by charging the people who are consuming the content you achieve some incredible side effects. You don’t hamper growth because your content creators aren’t taxed. In fact, you are giving them a potential business model and the motivation to create great content. Apple has made this happen with the iPhone App Store (even without social hooks). In the process, Twitter becomes a real business with a foundation to draw in the support of mobile carriers and content distributors (like Apple) that could further simplify the billing/transaction process.
In the Britney case, her PR team might have realized that there could be real revenue in her Twitter presence. This incentive would create a huge differentiator for Twitter and lead to substantive promotion of her Twitter service. Great paid services will be catapulted by Twitter’s unbelievable network effect (even more so if Twitter would start announcing when users follow other users the way Facebook shows new friend relationships). In the same way that Calacanis and Scoble vie for ever larger crowds of followers, this would be replicated inside the entertainment industry on a larger scale.
The bigger these “supertwitterers” become the more opportunity they have open to them. What is it worth to Pepsi for Britney to twitter “drinking a pepsi” to 1M followers?
There are content creators that will take this publishing/monetization platform to new and unseen heights.
It’s there. Twitter just needs to change the game.
See all
Post
Why would I pay to follow anyone on Twitter?!
Even now, I’m not that huge on Twitter
If they start charging, most other existing users will be twittering away to FriendFeed - or back to MySpace, where they can “stalk” their favorite celebrities without any cost incurred. But then again, I have yet to come across anyone who’s that enthusiastic about celebs…
Narendra Rocherolle is not serious about that idea. The purpose of the post is to get us to to check out 83degrees.com - which I did. Here’s a short review - it’s a website with introduction & sponsored ads/links to other social network sites such as fbExchange, FaceBook, 30boxes, gigaom, etc
“What is it worth to Pepsi for Britney to twitter “drinking a pepsi” to 1M followers?”
I’d rather pay to see people who peddle this shit be ripped apart by wild horses.
um … is this guy serious? who is going to pay to follow someone on twitter?
I think it’s backwards. Cell phone providers should be paying a revenue share to Twitter for amplifying the usage of (nonfree) SMS. Twitter should be out there making deals with AT&T and Verizon, not thinking of ways to force users to double-pay for their txts.
Narendra,
Subscriptions will not work on Twitter, plain and simple. Unless it is Britney herself updating what she is doing and where she is exactly for paparazzi to follow, it’s a pipedream. Here is what I wrote in response to Dave Winer’s comparison of Twitter to Netscape:
“Personally, I think that Twitter will keep the stronghold in the personal micro-blog space. I forsee them launching ‘groups’, an embed API for blogs/websites to use, and real time updating text ads with words typed. These developments can help bring advertisers and will please users looking for a place to belong inside Twitter. As for enterprise, Cisco or Oracle will take the micro-updates space to a new level. Twitter and Yammer will never be able to successfully compete in that arena on their own”
Twitters Business Plan http://tinyurl.com/5szreh (btw, I dont’t know this guy, I just love his Comics)
And NO, I would’t pay to follow anyone on twitter, but maybe some teenagers would.
you shouldn’t pay,
you should be paid
think about earning 10 cents per tweet you get from pepsi.
@Stefie, that’s the point. As potential investors, we *want* twitter to monetize this “some teenagers” market segment. There is money to be made.
Good point, see it as automated cell phone fees and you’re kinda set for a start: as paid text messages and a private twitter feed. But, find that segment is not going to be easy and I don’t know how their business deals are offered and dealt. I think content, to be paid, must be of better quality and for multiple other products, in this case tough to discern with music that’s for sure. Maybe involve some ‘reality show’-features like playing a question-answering game etc. I see that as a good subscription platform, I imagine some magazines doing it easily. Just me having weird thoughts while reading the comments, see ya!
Good thing this was posted on the weekend, in the middle of the night because it may be one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on TC.
*Everyone* seems to believe *they* know how twitter can generate revenue (go to AVC or SAI, these people show up in comments all the time). This Rocherolle guy has no clue and this “plan” would kill twitter’s usage and chance for success.
The arrogance of this post is nauseating.
@Kushal, you are not an accredited investor and will never hold preferred twitter stock. Twitter will not IPO, especially with this proposed plan. Get a clue.
Narendra — great post. It’s a simple value exchange between content creator (Britney) and content consumer (us humble Tweeters) and Twitter is the intermediary to enable that exchange. You are absolutely right that Twitter could help grow the industry by placing a value on that content. Heck, in this economy, they are going to have to monetize Twitter somehow, it might as well help the industry grow in the process and facilitate a way for Britney/Pepsi/others to connect with their audience.
You are an idiot.
1)You don’t even understand how the threaded rplies wrk on this blog.
2)”might as well help the industry”?? Why do they have to help anything but their own company?
3)If I drink pepsi, I dont need to connect with pepsi, just give me my drink
4) Product placement is not a new concept and its ROI is questionable when in text form
STFU and start learning rather than writing crap.
Another useless and clueless idea.
Totally disagree with this guy. He contradicts himself in his own article. People like twitter because it is real, yet he supposes people will pay to follow someone like Britney to hear her say “drink a Pepsi.” Gimme a break! How is that real?!
I think he touches on one of the reasons why people like to use twitter, because it’s not filled with such obvious pandering. If I follow someone, it’s because I’m interested in what *they* have to say. If I perceive it’s not real or the person is promoting something, my interest level falls rather rapidly because I *can’t* trust what they tweet…
People don’t want to pay for everything. If twitter started charging, then people would find another way to stay connected.
Come on. Rocherolle is a genius visionary. No?
This guy cloned an idea in the dotcom boom, made an uninteresting exit in ‘04, and has founded some 83degree bullshit that focuses on helping people with actual ideas execute (in other words, no vision.
just because teenagers would pay for it, it doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. As I said, I would never pay for it! Turning twitter into a pr platform for celebrities is a dangerous thing…twitter is not unique anymore, there are other micro-blogging services out there.
@Stefie:
“just because teenagers would pay for it, it doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea.”
If many teenagers would pay for it then it is a good idea!. We are talking about making money here. Aren’t we?
I think this guy has a point……….sorta
I’m also interested in the syndicating pay-only model where users could set the price of their own streams and thus make money from them, and given that the concept came from the App Store I would assume he is considering in doing a 70/30 split of the proceeds.
Then that begs to question “why would you pay to follow someone?”
There would have to be some kind of premium feature in association with this model or the content would HAVE to be really REALLY compelling to get ppl to pay to follow you.
He did pick up on the potential of “under the radar” marketing though and the Pepsi example is just one iteration of this, it could be way more subtle and transparent then just saying “oh I’m drinking a Pepsi”.
Good Stuff
Britney? Another reason to not use this crap.
If you just can’t get enough of us here, we’ve also been broadcasting out into the Twittersphere with our googledata account. If you’re not in the know, Twitter is a microblogging service that makes it easy to keep up with your favorite people (hopefully us) on multiple networks and devices.
Follow us on Twitter !!
If Pepsi wants to pay Britney, they go directly to Britney.
The last thing they want is someone they need to pay extra for.
My two cents:
If Twitter wants to make money, they need to allow ads right next to the conversations. Real time. Or they need to look at LinkedIn’s Inmail business model because right now it’s impossible to respond to what someone’s saying on Twitter and while I agree that may be a good thing, it not always is.
Why no crunchbase entry for Britney?
Would be great if the opensource twitter laconi.ca would be first having a paypal subscription model.
Great post. a little odd idea at first but I this he’s on to something.
Clueless fans of celebrities would pay to follow their fantasy faves.
Maybe Brtiney wasn’t the best example to use for the TechCrunch audience, but there is absolutely value in real-time premium content. For example, Warren Buffet could publish premium content on Twitter related to current stock market conditions, what he’s buying / selling, etc. I’ll bet many investors would pay for that.
I agree. So many posters here don’t see the big picture. They are fixated on the Britney/Pepsi example and seem to easily get angry about it.
When there is asymmetric demand for updates on a relationship, or cluster of relationships (subscribe to feeds of your baseball or futbol team), you make opportunities to extract value from the consumer ($1/month for Britney, $1/week for your local congressional campaign, $1/day for the nurse that monitors your insulin levels).
There’s also a flip side to the business model. A consumer paying for services that help you manage the 5000 feeds you consume. Relevance scores, alternate delivery services, alerting, social relevance (your friend Bob may be interested in this tweet) could help you survive the spew.
Wow Britney is on twitter, Twitter is so popular even artist join them cool
Every time scoble tells me about what he’s having for lunch I lose money? You’ve gotta be insane.
Wouldn’t more people pay to follow @Womanizer than @TheRealBritney?
This is a remedial clarification for people fixating on Britney or this would somehow kill Twitter’s growth.
Let publishers have the *option* to choose to build a business.
Users will always have the choice about who they follow. That is the beauty of Twitter.
Most people wouldn’t buy Koi Pond for the Apple iPhone, but a ton of people do. By letting developers charge for apps, Apple has generated a ton of usage. Would it be more if all apps were free? I don’t think so. Would the quality of apps be as high? No.
Notice that neither Fred WIlson nor the twitter execs are paying any attention to you or any of the other armchair CEOs about how to move the business forward? There is some “finkle kid” on SAI comments that posts how twitter can make money all the time. What is your point? You should lead the company?
Just start your own business that re-invents a communication medium. It’ll make you more money.
I do believe that people would pay to follow celebrities around on twitter, absolutely. As Narendra says, it’s real time and you take it with you through your so-called life…
But I also believe that Britney and every other celebrity out there would outsource the job!
yeah many folks would be suckers to pay to follow someone. twiiter implement this feature and you may have a revenue model
This is not a bad idea at all, like some of you already stated some posters are fixated on Britney/pepsi scenario.. imagine Jim Cramer starts a premium account and only charges $2.99 to follow a month.. imagine he gets between 100 to 500 thousand followers (He could easily get by the way) thats $299,000.00 to 1.5 million dollars a month.
many people can use this.. celebrities would IMO be the least profit generators.
As an avid Twitter user I have to say that segmenting the service is not a great idea, *but* using it as a lead generator for more “premium” content is a good idea (i.e. she offers private “chat” sessions on her blog or something of that sort).
Tough to see how Twitter wins in that scenario, but if they go down the road they suggest they will destroy what is a simple, clean and easy-to-use service.
who is paying whom for publishing this garbage?
Twitter? TechCrunch? Narendra?
My 5 year-old could give better analysis of the internet scene.
Taking this blog out of my reader, you suck
THIS.
So what is this Twitter thing I hear soo much about it… I made an account I still don’t get it. Is this another facebook or something?
Far from it. Fortunately, you will most likely walk away without experiencing any withdrawal.
dude who wrote this better not quit his day job. and i sure hope this wasn’t his day job.
The accessibility and persistance and value of data (tweets) on twitter drops off so quickly that it’d be difficult for a new user to start a conversation or connection. It was difficult for me to ramp up on that service. I disagree that it’s a disruptive service. It doesn’t matter if I use the service or if I don’t. I can walk away without any withdrawl unlike services like facebook or youtube.
The inverse model should apply:
Let the Britney’s pay for using Twitter.
They are the advertisers.
They can reach a mass audience through Twitter.
Thus businesses on Twitter should pay for spamming, getting attention and getting followers.
Twitter is 140 character advertising for businesses.
Sorry I think charging people to follow people on Twitter would kill it.
As other posters have pointed out the social networking world is huge and there are many outlets for people to us.
Putting a price on Twitter would cause it to crash. It had a 500% increase last year. Why mess around with that?
I totally disagree here. COULD Twitter take advantage of Britney and other celeb-types and make some cash here, yes. Would the everyday Twitter user continue to use the service, heck no. If you actually use Twitter, you’d notice a diverse group of social media savvy people. Who in the heck would pay to follow Britney Spears, just to see her posts things like “drinking a Pespi?”
The only way this could possibly work, would be if the Britney (or insert other celeb here) Fan Club website had an Twitter API that had feeds only on her page. Maybe, then maybe, some 12-year-old fan would beg for daddy’s credit card to pay to follow Britney’s publicit’s assistant’s update every few hours.
I figured that it would only be a matter of time before something like this would happen with twitter.
This is a no brainer, no fans will pay to follow celebs on twitter. Not even teenagers. The idea of twitter and social media is a closer connection with people you may not otherwise have been able to connect with. Paying to know what a celeb is doing kills that connection. Only people that will pay to follow a celeb are people that hope to make money off that celeb.
There are lots of other ways in social media for celebs to connect with their fans why would they want to enrich someone else doing it.
A level playing field between celebs, CEOs and everyone is what makes social media special, any site that kills it will be left in the behind.