Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
If he wants to charge for the verification, which I don't see as a bad thing, he has to offer those that are verified something back where they benefit.
As an example, Darren Hayes, who many here would regard as one of the better Flames reporters, is verified. Does he benefit enough from being on Twitter where many Flames fans follow him that he would pay for the blue check? Maybe, maybe not. Not sure about everyone else, but 100% of the Darren Hayes content I read comes from reading a tweet first, clicking the link and reading the article.
In fact I hardly visit most major sports sites, and even watch most highlights on Twitter as well. I always felt that the sports side of things was the best part of Twitter, and had the best user experience.
Darren Hayes might not be a celebrity, but he has 13.5k followers, so I could see someone like him pay to keep the blue check, and perhaps other premium features.
|
There would have to be an additional benefit to him though. What is he getting out of having the checkmark. You are still going to follow him and click his articles whether or not he has a checkmark or not.
The only time the check mark particularly matters is when people are faking another's account. In sports this is typically where some guy with a slightly mis-spelled insider name is reporting fake trades.
The benefit is having the right guy verified is to the readers though. What does it matter to real Elliott Friedman if fake Elliott Friedman is making up fake trades. The benefit is to the users of the service who can quickly figure out its a fake account.