Making money with Web 2.0 applications

Submitted by infojunkie on Mon, 2009-06-01 04:52.
in

The question of how Twitter will ever make money is on many minds.

For starters, Twitter cannot charge its users. Because all of Twitter is user-generated content, it doesn't make sense to make them pay. Paraphrasing the words of a co-worker: Twitter is doing nothing that can't be achieved using RSS and a 140-chars textarea :-)

The problem is compounded with the fact that Twitter has an API that can help bypass the site altogether, thereby ruling out the traditional - and failed IMO - online advertising revenue model.

What's left? A Twitter Pro with higher level of service? Not very compelling.

Here's my solution for Twitter and similar Web 2.0 applications that offer *only user-generated content*:

Charge for commercial usage of the API.

If anybody's using Twitter to make money, by using the API and offering a value that people are ready to pay for, then Twitter should be taking a cut. If no one sees a business value in using Twitter, then it should remain free for everyone, and may it survive by the grace of God.

great points

Submitted by islam guemey (not verified) on Sun, 2009-06-07 02:37.

Chk out this guy:

"Advertising Isn’t a Revenue Model" http://www.mappingtheweb.com/2007/11/26/advertising-revenue-model/

all this reinforces 2me the foundational principle (forgotten since WWW Commercialization Act in 1995?) that essentially the Web is a just communication medium - whose technology and content are mostly contributed freely.

So unless one is pushing a genuine product / service, or benefitting an affiliate over that medium - like any other - no profitiability is really forthcoming.

As innovative takes on profiling oneself through good old home pages and staying in touch with others with or without public forums - they remain expendable - unless the value of subscription is really worth it for some reason.

ps. commented on yer nooma two liner (?!) - but forgot to sign my name.