How to Solve Twitter's Biggest Problems

There has been a lot of word virtually Twitter lately, most of information technology negative—information technology tin't brand money on advertising, growth is downward, and online bullies remain a problem.

Notwithstanding, many still flock to this platform.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump tweets daily; more every day since the election. This alone, you'd recall, would describe more attention to Twitter and make it more popular. Twitter does over U.s.$2.5 billion in revenue, merely tech companies are supposed to grow like crazy, not freeze up at a mere US$2.5 billion dollars, certainly a ludicrous finding.

With that revenue, all Twitter needs to do is have a bunch of sales folks sell the ads and a slew of It guys keep the thing running. That should not cost billions, although it looks similar information technology does.

So what'south the solution to this 'problem'?

When I mind to all the pundits, I see two solutions. The starting time is never brought up for any other billion-dollar company: stabilisation. In other words, do zip.

In tech, there is a never-ending mad dash for growth. It stems from the late 1990s, when one company would replace another after the simplest of stumbles. The financiers, mostly venture capitalists, demanded loftier performance growth and then they could dump the company and exercise it all over once more with some other crazy thought. This is an unnatural way to do business. Most businesses stabilise and become fixtures. Not so with tech, where everything seems similar a fad.

Online customers tin easily drop i thing and flock to some other. Thus, Twitter's US$2.5 billion in acquirement could drib to a billion—or nothing—almost overnight. It cannot just stabilise and coast for every bit long every bit possible, or die a natural decease, or morph the way AOL morphed. It is a spawn of the get-go tech abound-like-crazy-or-dice syndrome.

The irony is that such companies often get acquired by other growth-oriented places like Google or Facebook. What happens and then? They slowly die a natural death...ordinarily quicker.

That's not to say there aren't issues with Twitter. At that place is some sort of corruption with the 'Who to follow' recommendations; information technology seldom makes sense particularly for those signing upwards for a new account. Peradventure that'due south function of its advertizing, although I exercise not think so. There is a lot of spam. I find fake accounts daily and exercise non see how they can perhaps remain unless Twitter wants phony numbers. All the same, its cadre users seem content.

Which brings united states of america to the second solution, which is simple. Practice what LinkedIn did and add a premium tier. I'd pay US$5 or US$ten a twelvemonth for an upper tier account. In that location are over 300 meg active users. Sell them something! How hard can it be?

Well-nigh John C. Dvorak

John C. Dvorak

John C. Dvorak is a columnist for PCMag.com and the co-host of the twice weekly podcast, the No Agenda Evidence. His work is licensed around the world. Previously a columnist for Forbes, PC/Computing, Figurer Shopper, MacUser, Barrons, the DEC Professional as well every bit other newspapers and magazines. Former editor and consulting editor for InfoWorld, he also appeared in the New York Times, LA Times, Philadelphia Enquirer, SF Examiner, and the Vancouver Lord's day. He was on the commencement-up squad for C/Net as well as ZDTV. At ZDTV (and TechTV) he hosted Silicon Spin for four years doing 1000 alive and live-to-tape TV shows. His Internet bear witness Cranky Geeks was considered a …