Musk tells Twitter’s blue-tick users to ‘pay up’ – but will it work?

High-profile users deliver value to the platform, says James Moore – so maybe Musk should pay them instead

The new owner is proposing a fundamental change to Twitter’s business model (Reuters)

Elon Musk’s plan for Twitter’s blue tick – the symbol denoting verified accounts for journalists, celebrities and high-profile individuals and organisations – has received a big red “X” from many users.

When a $20 (£17) monthly fee for having one was floated by Musk, horror writer Stephen King suggested he’d be off.

“$20 a month to keep my blue check? F*** that, they should pay me. If that gets instituted, I’m gone like Enron,” he tweeted.

He might have a point. King, whose works include It, Carrie and Salem’s Lot, has 6.9 million followers. He’s an active and entertaining user of the site. Other users do not want to see departing.

Musk’s response? “We need to pay the bills somehow! Twitter cannot rely entirely on advertisers. How about $8?”

Which, it turns out, will be the price. At least for now.

“Twitter’s current lords & peasants system for who has or doesn’t have a blue checkmark is bulls***,” Musk explained.

We really could use an end to absurdly rich and powerful figures trying to play the “man of the people” card. Musk bought Twitter the way some of us buy used cars. His erratic conduct has made paying Twitter’s bills that much harder.

Some big advertisers have pressed the pause button, fearing the potential implications of his previous statements in which he has suggested turning the site into an unmoderated free-for-all.

The reality is that Twitter often resembles that anyway. Logging on frequently involves taking a dip into the deep well of human darkness. Taking a holiday from the site can deliver very real improvements in one’s mental health.

Moderation, where it exists, is notably inconsistent and susceptible to pile-ons in which activists from both the left and the right swamp moderators by reporting tweets that contain views they dislike.

If Musk were to establish a cleaner and more consistent approach, with a meaningful right of appeal, his ownership might actually be a boon. It might even encourage more users and advertisers to dip their toes into clearer, if no less toxic, waters.

We are told “blue tick” will become a subscription open to all and with additional benefits: the ability to post longer videos and having replies prioritsed for example.

The latter means they could have real value to, say, a freelance journalist. But also to a troll.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if these subscriptions were gifted to the likes of King. Celebrities are regularly garlanded with free stuff from companies.

With this plan, Musk is proposing a fundamental change to Twitter’s business model. It is a risky move.

LinkedIn, the Microsoft-owned professional network, has long touted its premium service, with a variety of features, starting with the ability to see who has viewed one’s profile and assisting users with getting themselves in front of potential employers.

Its services are quite pricey, starting at £34.99 in the UK. To justify such a sum, LinkedIn has to demonstrate value. Getting its users a new job would do that.

The benefits of a Twitter blue tick are less tangible. The irony is that, under Musk’s plan, the site really will create a lords and peasants situation by denoting premium users; those with the capacity and willingness to pay. In favouring their postings, it will also become less of the “neutral town square” Musk has claimed to want.

He really is running the real risk of blowing up his expensive new toy. He has so far booted Twitter’s board and told those who remain that they must work 24/7. One wonders what his lenders think about this.

The chief beneficiary of it all going horribly wrong would be rivals such as LinkedIn and Meta, who will be watching developments quite closely.