Ask the Community: Is Twitter Worth $60 Million?
Rumors are flying that Twitter is trying to raise some more funding. Here’s what Silicon Alley Insider had to say:
“Last summer, Twitter raised about $5 million at a $20 million valuation. This time, we hear its looking for about $15 million at about a $60 million valuation. We hear the company is talking to the “usual suspects” — we assume this means existing investors like Union Square Ventures and Charles River Ventures, as well as players like Spark Capital — and hopes to have a deal done soon.”
I know what I think, but I want to hear from you. Here are some suggested topics:
Do you think Twitter has a business model in mind?
Will Advertisements be enough?
Is Twitter worth more or less than $60 million?
Enough from me, what do you think?
If you liked this post and want others to find it, Stumble it!
If you like this post and want to share it with your Twitter friends,
If you liked this post and want to see more on a daily basis get my posts via RSS
April 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
As it stands, I’m not really sure what would be the most effective monetization method for Twitter. Many people use third-party apps like Twhirl, so advertising on the Twitter website itself wouldn’t be enough. Maybe they’d sent out “sponsored tweets” in much the same way that ads have been integrated into the Facebook mini-feed?
April 25th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
it’s going to be hard to monetize. We’ve seen the ads in the facebook feeds, will that be adaptable to twitter? I don’t really think so. However, i can see them offering a free ad-supported or premium service. Also, a premium subscription service could offer extended functionality, groups, etc.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I would say for anyone reading this post, the answer might seem to be a resounding “yes.” Unfortunately, the world is much bigger than the Twitterverse.
If Twitter tries to “monetize” with ads, the core user group will moan and groan. Some might even leave. Maybe a lot will leave. What makes Twitter so great right now is that it’s simply a mechanism that does what it’s supposed to do. No frills. No feature creep. Complete simplicity.
I recall someone saying the Twitter folks are just waiting for Google to buy them. That is probably the best scenario for everyone right now. Google will keep the service in beta for 5 years and it won’t change too much.
Twitter is a big money suck for companies, but users love it.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I think it really depends on the number of users and how much each user is worth. If I were to guesstimate a conservative 4mil users within next couple years with 1% stars at $25 a pop, 5% top users at $10, 20% regulars at $5, 40% occasionals at $1, 34% rare/inactive users at $0.10, it would come out to under $10 mil. But change the numbers around to 20mil users with a 10% better revenue model, and it could be worth $50 mil. I think $60 mil is a good valuation (for now). Keep waiting and it could be the next $1.6bn, lol.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I think the Twitterrific or Flickr Pro business model is what they will use. Charge you a small fee for access w/o ads, otherwise pay a small fee to get ads in your Tweet stream. Im surprised they haven’t done AdSense for now though, esp in the web browser.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I’d think of it this way… when you look at the normal Web app, how engaged our your users with the app? moderately engaged… I may use it on a semi-regular basis.
In Twitter’s case, they have complete control over my pocket. They can send me crap to my phone whenever they want and I love it! They have a ton of MEGA-engaged users. That’s gotta be worth something.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Good post AJ! Not sure how Twitter would bring in the $.