And ironically enough, blue currently works as a crappy version of advertising thanks to the reply ranking. The promises of prioritizing "high-quality content" never came true; all we see are mid takes and, if you speak Mandarin, AI-powered sex scambots.
Well, worse for us plebs. Not sure if it's worse for the buyers.
I don't know, I think the hope is there. With these rate limits and some Fermi estimates, we can guess what Twitter's hoped-for revenue per user might be.
Suppose that this move is designed to move regular users over to Twitter Blue, and a regular user might ordinarily see 2000 tweets per day. Suppose further that Twitter would show 1 ad per 10 tweets, and ad sells for 3$CPM on average, and a Blue user sees 33% fewer ads.
An ordinary user would then expect to give Twitter 200 ad impressions per day, at $0.60/day of ad revenue or $18. By seeing 1/3 fewer ads, that ad revenue drops to $12, but Twitter picks up $8/month in Blue subscription fees, increasing the gross revenue to $20.
That feels about right, and the math gets better in the short term for Twitter if it's having a hard time filling its ad spots — a proportionally greater share of its revenue would then come from the pushed-for Blue.
Likewise, if Twitter is having a hard time filling its advertising spots, kicking non-Blue viewers off the platform is not a short-term revenue loss: the marginal eyeball is unmonetized. In the medium to long term, of course, Twitter is strangling the very content that attracts those eyeballs, and this is still a bone-headed business decision.
"Half ads: See approximately 50% fewer ads in the For You and Following timelines. As you scroll, you will see approximately twice as many organic or non-promoted Tweets placed in between promoted Tweets or ads. There may be times when there are more or fewer non-promoted Tweets between promoted Tweets. The half ads feature does not apply to promoted content elsewhere on Twitter, including but not limited to ads on profiles, ads in Tweet replies, promoted events in Explore, promoted trends, and promoted accounts to follow. Blue subscribers will have access to this feature after their account has been reviewed for eligibility and the blue checkmark has been applied."
Twitter has over 12 billion USD in debt though, and with rising interest rate the interest payments are going to be an absolute drag on financial performance. Those payments MUST be met, otherwise Musk will not own Twitter at all. Scaling down user numbers is unlikely to help. Even 3% interest rate on 10b is 300 million per year.
I hope you don't work in marketing. Why would a non-paying user watch Twitter arbitrarily limit the number of Tweets a _paying user_ can view per day, and think "yeah, I'll pay for that".
Hell no, but also don't mistake me for thinking that this was a good idea.
However, particularly when I don't understand a subject well, I try to take all reasonable-sounding claims seriously at first and give them some back-of-the-envelope analysis. It seemed to me that the original claim was that Blue sales couldn't replace ads, but it seems like the numbers are close under some reasonable approximation.
I do agree that this move is likely to drive many users away from Twitter entirely, but a short-sighted company could still think that an acceptable tradeoff if they're having trouble selling all available advertising space.