Elon Musk $41B offer for Twitter
Discussion
EddieSteadyGo said:
Pretty sure Musk calls "verified subscribers" those who pay for a blue tick. Hence "verified subscriber followers" would be how many of those people follow a given account.
Oliver Alexander knows that of course, but he prefers to misrepresent it so he can get a few more "likes".
Yep - blue tick is VerifiedOliver Alexander knows that of course, but he prefers to misrepresent it so he can get a few more "likes".
Subscriber is either basic, premium or premium+
To get your free Premium subscription worth £100 a year you need to have 2500 followers who are already premium or premium+ paying users.
To get your free Premium+ subscription worth £200 a year you need to have 4500 followers who are already premium or premium+ paying users.
I'd imagine there aren't many non blue tick accounts that have 5000 followers who are blue tick paying members.
Worth noting if you subscribe but don't have a blue tick it's still £40 a year
All that to save £5 a month
Edited by LivLL on Sunday 31st March 14:41
Edited by LivLL on Sunday 31st March 14:49
I know he’s a bit of an egotistical maniac and a hot head, but genuinely how could Musk not understand that the ONLY reason that verified accounts used to have value, was because they could NOT be bought?
Like honestly. It was the most basic thing ever and absolutely key to why people trusted Twitter.
Like honestly. It was the most basic thing ever and absolutely key to why people trusted Twitter.
p1stonhead said:
the ONLY reason that verified accounts used to have value, was because they could NOT be bought?
Twitter insiders sold blue check accounts for up to $15k a pop prior to Musk's take over. https://x.com/WSBChairman/status/15889739183792005...
LivLL said:
Yep - blue tick is Verified
Subscriber is either basic, premium or premium+
To get your free Premium subscription worth £100 a year you need to have 2500 followers who are already premium or premium+ paying users.
To get your free Premium+ subscription worth £200 a year you need to have 4500 followers who are already premium or premium+ paying users.
I'd imagine there aren't many non blue tick accounts that have 5000 followers who are blue tick paying members.
Worth noting if you subscribe but don't have a blue tick it's still £40 a year
All that to save £5 a month
as I’m not on Twitter, all that does to a regular pleb like me is make it sound like a load of wSubscriber is either basic, premium or premium+
To get your free Premium subscription worth £100 a year you need to have 2500 followers who are already premium or premium+ paying users.
To get your free Premium+ subscription worth £200 a year you need to have 4500 followers who are already premium or premium+ paying users.
I'd imagine there aren't many non blue tick accounts that have 5000 followers who are blue tick paying members.
Worth noting if you subscribe but don't have a blue tick it's still £40 a year
All that to save £5 a month
Edited by LivLL on Sunday 31st March 14:41
Edited by LivLL on Sunday 31st March 14:49
k. Who wants to gets confused about blue ticks / verified + etc ? And it depends on whether or not your followers are paying members? Like some dodgy pyramid scheme, herbalife was it?CoolHands said:
s I’m not on Twitter, all that does to a regular pleb like me is make it sound like a load of wk. Who wants to gets confused about blue ticks / verified + etc ? And it depends on whether or not your followers are paying members? Like some dodgy pyramid scheme, herbalife was it?
It's more fundamental. Twitter doesn't work particularly well (imo) as an advertising platform. It has never worked that well. It's ok for brands who can afford 'brand awareness' campaigns, but isn't that good at 'direct response' campaigns i.e. you show someone an advert and as a result they go and buy something. Meta on the other hand is exceptional at this, which is why it is a cash generating machine.k. Who wants to gets confused about blue ticks / verified + etc ? And it depends on whether or not your followers are paying members? Like some dodgy pyramid scheme, herbalife was it?This problem has resulted in Twitter (pre-Musk) always struggling to make a profit. Musk takes over, he insults those big brands who were advertising, so they reduce their ad-spend. That makes Twitter's cash burn rate frighteningly bad. Musk then cuts back on every aspect of spend which might be considered 'discretionary' whilst he tries to find new sources of revenue.
And so you get the idea of paying for a blue-tick, to be 'verified'. But it gets implemented in a cack-handed way, so he also then pisses off many of the largest accounts on Twitter.
With hindsight, he should have left the original 'blue ticks' alone, and added a different type of badge/verification for other people who wanted to pay to be verified. This latest idea of not charging the largest accounts for their bluetick is a climb-down by Musk and a step towards that I think.
EddieSteadyGo said:
It's more fundamental. Twitter doesn't work particularly well (imo) as an advertising platform. It has never worked that well. It's ok for brands who can afford 'brand awareness' campaigns, but isn't that good at 'direct response' campaigns i.e. you show someone an advert and as a result they go and buy something. Meta on the other hand is exceptional at this, which is why it is a cash generating machine.
This problem has resulted in Twitter (pre-Musk) always struggling to make a profit. Musk takes over, he insults those big brands who were advertising, so they reduce their ad-spend. That makes Twitter's cash burn rate frighteningly bad. Musk then cuts back on every aspect of spend which might be considered 'discretionary' whilst he tries to find new sources of revenue.
And so you get the idea of paying for a blue-tick, to be 'verified'. But it gets implemented in a cack-handed way, so he also then pisses off many of the largest accounts on Twitter.
With hindsight, he should have left the original 'blue ticks' alone, and added a different type of badge/verification for other people who wanted to pay to be verified. This latest idea of not charging the largest accounts for their bluetick is a climb-down by Musk and a step towards that I think.
We used to run campaigns for clients on Twitter none of them worked at all it’s no good for normal advertising more for brand awareness etc. this was before Elon came along and made it worse for advertisers!This problem has resulted in Twitter (pre-Musk) always struggling to make a profit. Musk takes over, he insults those big brands who were advertising, so they reduce their ad-spend. That makes Twitter's cash burn rate frighteningly bad. Musk then cuts back on every aspect of spend which might be considered 'discretionary' whilst he tries to find new sources of revenue.
And so you get the idea of paying for a blue-tick, to be 'verified'. But it gets implemented in a cack-handed way, so he also then pisses off many of the largest accounts on Twitter.
With hindsight, he should have left the original 'blue ticks' alone, and added a different type of badge/verification for other people who wanted to pay to be verified. This latest idea of not charging the largest accounts for their bluetick is a climb-down by Musk and a step towards that I think.
RichTT said:
p1stonhead said:
the ONLY reason that verified accounts used to have value, was because they could NOT be bought?
Twitter insiders sold blue check accounts for up to $15k a pop prior to Musk's take over. https://x.com/WSBChairman/status/15889739183792005...
t show these days. RichTT said:
Twitter insiders sold blue check accounts for up to $15k a pop prior to Musk's take over.
https://x.com/WSBChairman/status/15889739183792005...
Looks like you think you cited a legit source there 😂https://x.com/WSBChairman/status/15889739183792005...
If you use Chrome add the extension Eight Dollars - https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/eight-dol...
It shows if the Twitter user an original verified user or a paid verified user.
It shows if the Twitter user an original verified user or a paid verified user.
p1stonhead said:
That may be the case, but actual famous and ‘important’ people as well as companies, has official ticks so you knew they were legit. Absolutely a st show these days.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-labelst show these days. They still exist in the form of Gold or Grey ticks, or are you ignoring that because it doesn't fit some sort of narrative?
"famous" and/or "important people" are perfectly welcome to pay for a blue tick like everyone else seeing as being "famous" and/or "important" isn't a free ticket any more. As it should be.
robscot said:
RichTT said:
Believe what you want mate. I'm not here to convince you.
You haven’t. Thanks for the screenshot though and giving it another go.
t because he was trying to flog the lot during the GameStop saga. Admin rights to the page, movie/book deals, his social media accounts. Absolute mercenary. Was only some wily work of the other mods that saved the subreddit. Byker28i said:
Sorry, your complaining twitter was doing essentially what Musk is doing now? People pay money for the blue tick?
Gatekeeping the review process to those who you believe 'deserve' a blue check account, or as it seems, were able to afford bribing you with $15k, doesn't quite equate with the egalitarian position of anyone being able to pay $8 for a verified account. captain_cynic said:
dobbo_ said:
RichTT said:
I am politically homeless.
This has to be satire. Stay strong brother Because all I can see is either a bunch of inept thieves, economic illiterates, genderwang proponents, climate loonies, or in my case in Scotland, the SNP, who are set on re-creating Nineteen Eighty Four.
Edited by RichTT on Monday 1st April 03:58
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff