Comments on: Twitter: Build a Revenue Stream on Dunbar’s Number

By: Garrick Van Buren

Garrick Van Buren — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:34:54 +0000

bex – the same economics apply no matter the service.

By: bex

bex — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:12:24 +0000

you got a problem: FriendFeed.

Why would I pay money to follow somebody on Twitter? That would just make me follow him on FriendFeed, or another Twitter aggregating system?

Perhaps you could change people who have lots of followers…

By: Nicole Netland

Nicole Netland — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:30:31 +0000

Really interesting model. Thanks for the POV.

By: Greg (@perfectporridge)

Greg (@perfectporridge) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:20:07 +0000

I LOVE DUNBAR’S NUMBER! I use it with clients quite often.

To Aaron’s point, it certainly would change the dynamic…especially with picky/bitchy followers don’t always like everything people tweet or how they operate on Twitter (like Aaron, actually).

Me, I would pay Twitter $5/follower myself if it meant they provided an adequate service.

By: SweetKuni

SweetKuni — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:19:12 +0000

There are some Tweets I might pay to follow. Maybe some others should pay me for following. I have no idea how this will end up. I’d hate to see Twitter go away, though.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:19:28 +0000

I like some of the other ideas that come out of this, namely:

The assumption that you’re following friends, not organizations, companies, machines, bots, etc. I hope I get to pick who my 150 first people are, as I don’t want to have them pay to hear me blather.

What you propose would change the whole Twitter dynamic. I’m not opposed to it personally but I think it’d ruin it for anyone using it for promoting things or themselves… which I wouldn’t mind, actually. I don’t think it’d fly though. It’s a very interesting way to look at this though, thanks.