Act 1, Scene 2: As Musk overhauls Twitter, it needs bang-for-buck model, not overpriced verification

Beyond electric cars and space rockets, there is one thing that Elon Musk is very good at. He likes to keep people guessing even as he teases them with tweets, cryptic statements and the half-visible gestures of a dancing diva. Right now, after firing top managers of Twitter Inc, appointing himself as CEO, and being the sole director of the social media company, we have to keep guessing about his half-gestures, wondering not about his future on Twitter but that of ours.

Well done, Elon!

Last night, a TV news anchor asked me if I would pay the speculated $20 a month (a handsome Rs 1,600 in Indian rupees) to retain my Blue Tick. a.k.a. Verified Status on Twitter. My reply: "It depends". After well over a decade on the microblogging site, I would be sad to see that status go but you know, there is such a thing as value for money. I told the channel that I use the Pizza Principle: Just as I would be happy to pay Rs 100 for a plain Margherita, I would not pay more than Rs 500 unless it had delicious extra toppings.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

In Twitterspeak, the toppings could mean an Edit button, or a monetisation model in which I would be incentivised to create quality content, or a 'long-form' option in which I can blog more than the current limit of 280 characters, or weed out abusive trolls or irritating followers.

The $20 model as discussed by Musk with his staff, would be an enhanced version of its $4.99-a-month Twitter Blue which is a tentative project under which somewhat vague features are offered to paying subscribers. These include ad-free reading, colour themes, a bookmark folder, top articles, customised navigation and the facility to undo tweets. As a customer, I would want much more than that to make $20 fly off my digital wallet. Who would pay $20 every month for something that does not look more than a digital identity card wrapped in a fancy packet?

On the other hand, Musk may be a good thing for Twitter, which has relied for too long on its plain vanilla (or Margherita) model, which has an iffy video strategy and some ideas like Twitter Circle that help users choose tweet-by-tweet on who can engage with them. There is plenty of scope for Twitter to add value both to tweeters and followers but there is a catch. It has to deal with idealists who believe Twitter is a democratic medium in which all are equal, and therefore equally deserving, or undeserving, of a Blue Tick.

The hard fact is, as I have said countless times, "Twitter is the new parliament and Facebook is the new cafe" in the digital world. Musk has borrowed the old tag about Twitter being a global town square. All that makes it political and therefore, there are those who bring in the equality bit. Here's the catch: Early Twitter days saw fake profiles and then came fake news, abuse, propagandists, and wannabes. A verified handle essentially gave the folks known as followers a lighthouse beam on those Twitter thought to be having authenticity. Celebrities and journalists became early adopters and much-wooed partners in this game. Democracy has queered the pitch but Twitter is still a stock-market-listed market animal for which Musk and fellow investors paid $44 billion. My guess is that the $20-a-month thingie that is best described as calculated speculation would be just a way for Musk to keep market optimism up to stop the stock value from falling until he cooks up a profitable formula for the company.

Twitter is a bit like a watering hole in a wildlife reserve: Various species of people flock to it for different purposes. But, to be profitable, Musk needs to look at it as a market. From his message to advertisers, it would appear the Chief Twit wants to be like a new-age media baron akin to an old-world newspaper publisher, eschewing far-right vs far-left dogfights in favour of a middle-of-the-road digital town square that would please brands seeking a sensible audience.

Town squares seem like a fun place, but you don't find rock stars in town squares unless you spot a future candidate in her early days. Good content needs to be paid for -- directly or indirectly, by someone or the other. Right now, influencers partner with brands or journalists showcase their stories to attract attention to their own company websites. Twitter needs to engage in a manner that balances the democratic urge of political idealists and the quality content demands of the average follower -- just like sensible newspaper publishers do.

However, Twitter is more of a platform than publisher -- and has to do a digital-age balancing act for that. Is Musk up to the task? We need to watch this space as the man who gave us Tesla cars tries hard in his new role. The point to remember is that in the digital age, technology platforms enable the creation of online communities, but it is the people who give it the real buzz -- not the technology. There is a difference between a meaningful buzz and confusing, abusive noises. If Musk can figure a middle path, the $44 billion acquisition tag might well be worth it.

Elon Musk the diva is now in the green room. Twitter's top deck is nearly empty. We need to see how much of the rehearsal whispers we hear actually turn out to be part of the final act. But this much can be said: there is no substitute for credible and quality content. Digital platforms are like stages that need solid actors and scriptwriters.

The best ones don't do it for free. And charging them would make it counter-productive.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)