In 2010 I wanted an iPhone Twitter client with a nice UI and no ads, so I paid $2.99 for Tweetie 2. This was after I bought Tweetie 1 for $2.99. Tweetie 2 wasn't a free upgrade.
In 2011, after acquiring Tweetie 2 and making it free, Twitter adds paid advertisements and wrecks the UI.
Reminds me of many Android apps: instead of selling the app on the Marketplace the developers opt to include advertisements which cheapen the overall experience.
I suggested that to @stop on Twitter but didn't get a response.
In all seriousness though, I want to give Twitter money. It has contributed to my career in ways I'll never be able to fully measure and I feel like I owe Twitter something. Ads and intrusive trend bars are annoying, so I'd much rather give money. Monthly plans, yearly plans, "pro" plans... I don't care. They just need to get something in place.
No, I think the model is still ads. But if you give people the ability to pay to avoid ads, then the most dedicated twitter users will do so and your ads will dramatically decline in value. Why would an advertiser want to reach only the least engaged segment of your audience?
It seems that no one is interested in the model where subscribers pay for no ads. Look at Hulu. You can buy Hulu Plus and... still get ads. If Hulu Plus was ad free I would sign up immediately.
So why is that? There are several potential reasons:
1. Those providing such services like advertising or, rather, they like the relationships they have with advertisers. Consider [1] (second time quoted this today!):
> Since the carriers had all the power, getting any distribution (which usually meant getting on the handset “deck”) meant doing a business development deal with the carriers. Business development in this case meant finding the right people at those companies, sending them iPods, taking them to baseball games, and basically figuring out ways to convince them to work with you instead of the 5,000 other people sending them iPods and baseball tickets. The basis of competition was salesmanship and capital, not innovation or quality.
Companies, and particularly sales guys, like having something to sell (being ad inventory). They like the perks this gets them (and the commissions of course).
2. Subscribers aren't willing to pay what the advertising brings in. I'm curious about this but haven't seen any numbers. Take an episode of The Big Bang Theory. How much does each episode cost to produce? How much does each ad bring in? How much does the national network earn in affiliate fees? How much of the advertising revenue is product placement? If you had these numbers, you could calculate what each viewer is worth. I suspect it's a lot less than what such companies charge on iTunes and elsewhere;
3. A correlation between the people willing to pay for no ads and being the target of those ads, which means if you're willing to pay for no ads, you need to pay higher than what ad revenue / viewers might otherwise suggest; and
4. Lack of metrics in broadcast and print media. Sales guys are known to exaggerate (and basically just make up) conversion numbers on ad campaigns. The reality I'm sure is a lot less but there's no real way to tell. With online advertising, you can tell, which possibly explains it's lower cost/value compared to traditional advertising;
5. Related to (4), people pay for broadcast and print advertising what they do, largely because that's what it's always cost; and
6. Limited inventory drives up the cost. Inventory is not a problem online.
As for Twitter, I suspect they haven't done anything interesting with advertising (and monetization) because that's a hard problem to solve. I mean, people need to see ads for them to be ads right? At that point, how exactly are you going to advertise to people who mostly use an API, other than through their Twitter stream?
If the Dickbar annoys you as much as it annoys me and your phone is jailbroken, install the Twizzler package to remove it. Makes the new Twitter actually a quite nice upgrade.
[+] [-] kcl|15 years ago|reply
In 2011, after acquiring Tweetie 2 and making it free, Twitter adds paid advertisements and wrecks the UI.
[+] [-] flyosity|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webwright|15 years ago|reply
http://twitter.com/#!/dickc/status/43500398450982912 http://twitter.com/#!/dickc/status/44302983839756288
Bummer.
[+] [-] kmfrk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyleslattery|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|15 years ago|reply
http://dickbar.org
[+] [-] rhizome|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siglesias|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyosity|15 years ago|reply
In all seriousness though, I want to give Twitter money. It has contributed to my career in ways I'll never be able to fully measure and I feel like I owe Twitter something. Ads and intrusive trend bars are annoying, so I'd much rather give money. Monthly plans, yearly plans, "pro" plans... I don't care. They just need to get something in place.
[+] [-] eli|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cletus|15 years ago|reply
So why is that? There are several potential reasons:
1. Those providing such services like advertising or, rather, they like the relationships they have with advertisers. Consider [1] (second time quoted this today!):
> Since the carriers had all the power, getting any distribution (which usually meant getting on the handset “deck”) meant doing a business development deal with the carriers. Business development in this case meant finding the right people at those companies, sending them iPods, taking them to baseball games, and basically figuring out ways to convince them to work with you instead of the 5,000 other people sending them iPods and baseball tickets. The basis of competition was salesmanship and capital, not innovation or quality.
Companies, and particularly sales guys, like having something to sell (being ad inventory). They like the perks this gets them (and the commissions of course).
2. Subscribers aren't willing to pay what the advertising brings in. I'm curious about this but haven't seen any numbers. Take an episode of The Big Bang Theory. How much does each episode cost to produce? How much does each ad bring in? How much does the national network earn in affiliate fees? How much of the advertising revenue is product placement? If you had these numbers, you could calculate what each viewer is worth. I suspect it's a lot less than what such companies charge on iTunes and elsewhere;
3. A correlation between the people willing to pay for no ads and being the target of those ads, which means if you're willing to pay for no ads, you need to pay higher than what ad revenue / viewers might otherwise suggest; and
4. Lack of metrics in broadcast and print media. Sales guys are known to exaggerate (and basically just make up) conversion numbers on ad campaigns. The reality I'm sure is a lot less but there's no real way to tell. With online advertising, you can tell, which possibly explains it's lower cost/value compared to traditional advertising;
5. Related to (4), people pay for broadcast and print advertising what they do, largely because that's what it's always cost; and
6. Limited inventory drives up the cost. Inventory is not a problem online.
As for Twitter, I suspect they haven't done anything interesting with advertising (and monetization) because that's a hard problem to solve. I mean, people need to see ads for them to be ads right? At that point, how exactly are you going to advertise to people who mostly use an API, other than through their Twitter stream?
[1]: http://cdixon.org/2010/06/06/steve-jobs-single-handedly-rest...
[+] [-] xpaulbettsx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moblivu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristofferR|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pclark|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gsmaverick|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] X-Istence|15 years ago|reply
http://isource.com/2011/03/05/twizzler-the-jailbreak-answer-...
Courtesy of @chpwn.
[+] [-] jagtesh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SandB0x|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] siculars|15 years ago|reply