Comments on: Free vs. paid: Would Twitter be better if you paid for it?

By: P

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 04:31:55 +0000

zzzzzzzzz this is a case of living in the valley… so /so products that can’t monetize… the hype machines are running out of steam

By: Dan Holden

Dan Holden — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 03:26:46 +0000

It’s all opinion and conjecture until someone tries it. My two cents: Hell yes it would be better. Twitter is a very basic, very unstructured offering, just a few iterations evolved from the newsroom ticker. I’m actually kind of surprised nobody has been bold enough to go down this path before. Even just purchasing it as an app instead of getting it free would create a revenue stream that would beat the pants off of what it is now. And an app has the possibility of becoming something more…

By: zolarkingofmoney

zolarkingofmoney — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:32:01 +0000

Most of the people with a million + followers are celebrities or comedians. They should get paid for their work. Everyone else? Blah, blah, blah.

By: Orian Marx

Orian Marx — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:00:11 +0000

I think we need to get more ambitious in addressing the fundamental flaws of the advertising-based social networking models. Dalton is on the right path, but I suggest we go further: bit.ly/MF3Zyr

By: cinderellen

cinderellen — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:59:59 +0000

Paid Twitter might be a better service but I would never know because I would not pay.

By: Jared W Jarvi

Jared W Jarvi — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 23:40:08 +0000

Nothing is realy free. To make any of this magic happen we must pay up to $100. Per month for the right to acess high speed Internet. If service providers reduce junk ads and replace them with selective services some people would begin to pay for useful applications.

By: rrreisman

rrreisman — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:27:40 +0000

This debate really points to the failure of our current models. We have an eloquent cry for services that serve their users, not advertisers, versus the value of a mass audience that seems only reachable by free and freemium. And often neither paid nor free works very well — just look at the newspapers on the ropes and the musicians eking out a living selling teeshirts instead of songs.

Yet we are in a new age, and new thinking can provide a way to have it both ways, and to do even better at it. It is time for the invisible hand to meet the cloud. Free is just another price. Why why can’t we build services that dynamically customize both the service and the price? We need a new approach to pricing that looks beyond the scarcity of pre-digital times, and that exploits the new abundance, applying the dynamic intelligence of the cloud that can enable a single service be both:
–free for those who want free (and are willing to “pay” with ads or content submission), and/or
–paid for those who place value on getting what they want.

The FairPay pricing strategy that I have been developing is an attempt to rethink how we set prices to do just that. FairPay provides a new process for setting prices individually and dynamically. It does this through a “dialog about value” between users and service providers (services, platforms, creators, authors, artists, editors, producers, etc.). It applies an automated price discovery engine to manage that dialog and nudge it toward fairness.

Because it is dynamic and individualized, FairPay services can transcend all pricing options to find the one that works for a each user.
–Those who want an ad-free service can work out pricing that buys out the ads.
–Those who create user generated content can obtain pricing that factors in the value they contributed (and maybe even make money at it).
–Those who want if free can get an ad-supported package
–Those who want to save just a bit can get a light ad + paid blend
–Those who want to try a no-ad version can try it, with no obligation to pay more than they find it worth–after they try it, and know the value.
–Those who do not play nicely can have their privileges withdrawn, and be offered just fixed price or ads.

FairPay combines an architectural framework that can include all of these models, with a dialog process that allows both buyers and sellers to reach a fair equilibrium, based on the actual perceived value, considering any and all factors. Free and paid can coexist in the same service…

…continued in my blog post at http://www.fairpayzone.com/2012/07/free-and-paid-to-each-his-own-price.html

By: Denise

Denise — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:02:10 +0000

I couldn’t afford a paid version!! My bills are already killing me! I wouldn’t be using Twitter anymore! That sucks cause as a person who uses Twitter just for fun & get updates on various news quickly I’d miss it!!

By: lauragreene97

lauragreene97 — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:56:09 +0000

what about mobile apps? Do you go free or do you go paid? I always find mine at third party sites like Freeappsy (http://www.freeappsy.com) but I’m skeptical, am I missing out? I guess it depends how negatively the ads on free apps affect the interface. Some apps start to lag when the ads come in, but some support ads pretty effectively with minimal interference. I tend to try the free version and if I really like it I’ll treat myself to the ad free version

By: Sameer

Sameer — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:31:22 +0000

From a user’s perspective, all advertising is not bad. Refined targeted ads are welcome as long as they are non intrusive. i bet 95% of the audience out SV thinks this way. Now how do you make them pay in the app.net model?