Entertainment

Elon Musk wants you to pay for Twitter. Good luck with that.

Charging users for an ad-free Twitter experience may be harder than it seems.

Twitter

Twitter currently generates the vast majority of its revenue with ads.

Image: Protocol

We don’t know much yet about Twitter’s future after Elon Musk takes control of the company — heck, we can’t even be sure that the deal will get regulatory approval — but we do know two things: Musk wants to double down on free speech, and he wants to reduce the company’s reliance on advertising.

A closer look at Twitter’s financials reveals that the latter is a tall order, and any attempt to do so could actually make things worse for the company.

Twitter currently generates the vast majority of its revenue with ads, with a small sliver coming from data licensing deals as well as direct-to-consumer subscriptions. In Q4 2021, advertising made up roughly 90% of the company’s overall revenue.

Twitter didn’t break out how much of the rest came from its nascent Twitter Blue subscription service, but the company admitted that it’s not a whole lot. “While very small as a percent of revenue today, we believe Twitter Blue and other subscription-related revenue represents a significant opportunity for Twitter over time,” it wrote in its Q4 2021 shareholder letter.

Third-party data also suggests that Twitter Blue hasn’t exactly been a home run. Twitter has generated a total of $2.5 million with iOS in-app purchases worldwide to date, according to estimates that app analytics specialist Sensor Tower shared with Protocol. These revenues include both Twitter Blue subscription fees as well as fees generated with Super Follows. (The total amount of Twitter Blue revenue is likely higher, as people can also subscribe on the web, as well as via the company’s Android app.)

One reason for these lackluster results: Twitter Blue’s value proposition is a bit murky. A $3 per month subscription plan gets users access to advanced features and ad-free articles from a number of third-party websites, but it doesn’t actually remove ads from their Twitter feeds.

In a series of recent, since-deleted tweets, Musk suggested that he wants to revamp the company’s subscription program. Among his ideas: lowering the price to $2 a month, giving every paying subscriber a blue checkmark and removing ads from their feeds. “The power of corporations to dictate policy is greatly enhanced if Twitter depends on advertising money to survive,” Musk wrote.

The problem: Under this plan, Twitter would actually make less money per user than it currently does. The company doesn’t break out ARPU in its quarterly results, but a bit of back-of-the-envelope math suggests that the average ad revenue for each of the company’s 217 million monetizable daily active users was around $6.50 in Q4 2021, which comes to $2.17 per month.

There’s something to be said about using daily user metrics in this context, but high-propensity users are more likely to pay. Plus, again, this is merely a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Still, pretty close, right? Well, not exactly. Ad revenues vary widely by location, with Twitter generating 56% of its ad revenue in the United States in its most recent quarter, despite the fact that the U.S. is only home to 17.5% of its daily active users. In absolute numbers, U.S. Twitter users generated about $6.90 per month in ad revenue for the company.

The number of people willing to pay $7 or more per month for Twitter may be a lot lower than the number of people open to paying $2 per month, but there are other challenges. Chief among them: If Musk somehow manages to convince a significant chunk of Twitter’s power users to sign up for paid subscriptions, he’s also removing advertisers’ ability to target the service’s most valuable audience, potentially driving down ad rates across the service.

The flip side to all of this is that Twitter may not have a choice, thanks to Musk’s plan to turn Twitter once again into the “digital town square” where free speech rules supreme. In 2020, a number of major advertisers halted ad buys on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter over their role in spreading hate and disinformation. Twitter responded by expanding its hate speech rules, and more than doubling the number of accounts it took action against. If the company were to roll back any of these measures, it might also become a place that’s a lot less welcoming to advertisers.

Enterprise

Deloitte’s AI ethics lead: Stop worrying about AI bias all the time

AI that discriminates against people is a big problem, but Beena Ammanath, executive director of the Global Deloitte AI Institute and head of Trustworthy AI and Ethical Tech, says AI ethics is about a lot more than bias.

Beena Ammanath wasn’t always gung-ho to talk AI ethics. Then she decided to write a book about it.

Photo: Deloitte

“You won't see many people with my background talking about ethics,” said Beena Ammanath, executive director of the Global Deloitte AI Institute and head of Trustworthy AI and Ethical Tech at the global consulting company.

A computer scientist who worked as a database and SQL developer and held data science and AI-related technology roles at Bank of America, GE and Hewlett Packard before joining Deloitte in 2019, Ammanath wasn’t always gung-ho to talk AI ethics. Then she decided to write a book about it.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

ai

“We have a once-in-a-generation chance to build an infrastructure that equitably creates opportunities for Americans, instead of further isolating them. We must act.” – U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg

Infrastructure Transformation: The Time is Now

Keep Reading Show less
Sameer Sharma

Sameer Sharma is the Global GM (Smart Cities & Transportation) for IOT Solutions at Intel and a thought leader in IOT/AI ecosystem, having driven multiple strategic initiatives to scale over the past 20+ years. Sameer leads a global team that incubates and scales new growth categories and business models for Intel. His team also focuses on establishing leadership across the industry playing a pivotal role in deploying solutions for the development of smart cities around the world—an important effort in furthering the goal of sustainability. These solutions include Intelligent Transportation, AI/Video, Air Quality Monitoring and Smart Lighting. With far-reaching impact, each of these solutions is providing local governments a plethora of data to enhance the daily quality of life for citizens while simultaneously promoting responsible practices to protect the environment. As a leading authority on Cities and AI, Sameer is a frequent keynote speaker at top global events and has been featured in publications such as Economist, Forbes, WSJ and New York Times. His high-energy talks cover pragmatic examples of impact and reflect his passion and belief that technology can and must be a force for good in our society. Sameer has an MBA from The Wharton School at UPenn, and a Masters in Computer Engineering from Rutgers University. He holds 11 patents in the areas of IOT and Mobile. He can be reached through LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/sameersharma/) or Twitter (@sameer_iot)

Policy

Tribal leaders are building a better internet from the ground up

Underserved communities on tribal lands are building decentralized, affordable local networks to bridge the digital divide.

A growing roster of communities, tired of waiting for federal policymakers to act, are taking matters into their own hands in a bid to build the decentralized, more equitable networks of tomorrow.

Photo: Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Despite creating the predecessor of the modern internet, U.S. broadband access has remained mired in mediocrity for decades, with Americans paying some of the highest prices in the developed world for spotty, slow connections and abysmal customer support.

Somewhere between 14 and 42 million Americans lack access to reliable broadband. Another 83 million Americans currently live under a broadband monopoly, with access to just one internet service provider (ISP). This lack of competition results in high prices, spotty coverage, poor customer service and even privacy violations.

Keep Reading Show less
Karl Bode
Karl Bode is a Seattle-based freelance journalist with a focus on telecom, tech policy, privacy, and consumer rights.
Workplace

Amazon's abortion benefit is more important than you think

The country’s second-largest private employer plans to give hundreds of thousands of people access to a travel stipend to receive out-of-state abortions, which would help them avoid abortion bans if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

More than 1 million people work for Amazon in the U.S., and the majority of those employees work in blue-collar, lower-wage positions inside the company’s massive fulfillment and logistics network.

Photo: David Ryder via Getty Images

As the Supreme Court prepares to overturn Roe v. Wade in the coming months, most likely allowing sweeping bans on abortion in most Republican-led states, Amazon has granted a new and unusual benefit to the million-plus Americans who work for the company: $4,000 to travel for out-of-state health care, including abortions.

The country’s second-largest private-sector employer — surpassed only by Walmart — announced the benefit on May 2 before a draft Supreme Court opinion leaked the same day that shows that the court plans to overturn constitutional abortion protections in a ruling expected to be made final in June or July. At least 13 states have provisions known as “trigger laws” in place that will immediately ban abortion access if the ruling becomes official, and about a dozen more are expected to pass similar bans in the coming months.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

Policy

Telehealth won't solve abortion access in a post-Roe world

Abortion pills offer a sliver of hope in a post-Roe world. But online providers face a lot of the same limits that exist in the offline world.

“Telehealth is not a panacea,” said Cindy Adam, CEO of the telehealth clinic Choix.

Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

Almost as soon as Politico broke the news Monday that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, searches for “abortion pills” shot up on Google. Reproductive rights advocates quickly held up medication abortion as the tiniest splinter of hope that pregnant people will not have to return to the back alleys of old to have abortions in a post-Roe world.

And in a lot of ways, that’s true. The telehealth boom of the last two years and more recent regulatory changes at the FDA have launched a batch of startups that provide safe, effective abortion pills by mail.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Latest Stories
Bulletins