Formerly Verified Users Aren’t Buying The Twitter Blue Elon Musk Is Selling
from the blue-you dept
As you likely know, Elon Musk has been shilling Twitter Blue as his plan to save Twitter since basically four hours after he took over the company. In theory, pushing Twitter Blue was a good idea. Twitter Blue was the plan to offer a premium service to loyal Twitter users by upselling them on some useful premium features. It existed pre-Musk, but the company had never done a particularly good job marketing it (you can say that about many of old Twitter’s services).
The problem was that Musk somehow mentally merged Twitter Blue (cool, useful premium services to upsell) with Twitter Verified (a trust and safety tool to protect users on the site and make more high profile accounts feel like they can trust the site). The end result then is the worst of all worlds. Rather than upselling cool, useful services… you’re upselling “not having a shit experience” on the site. That means you’re basically screaming “if you don’t pay us, you’re going to have a shit experience.”
And, sure, some people will pay, but many others will say, “wait, this is a shit experience, maybe I should go elsewhere.”
One thing that definitely doesn’t seem to be happening is getting very many people to pay. We already covered how the Twitter Blue sales numbers were basically inconsequential and barely a blip (especially when compared to all the advertisers bailing).
Of course, some thought that maybe the high profile users, the ones who already had been verified, weren’t buying because they “didn’t need to,” since apparently there’s basically no automated system for Twitter to remove the old “legacy” verified users in any systematic way. That had been rumored late last year, when Musk first launched this ridiculous plan. But I had assumed that he’d assigned some random poor sob of an engineer to write some code to fix this, and once that was done, that was why Twitter publicly announced that “legacy” verified users would lose their checks on April 1st.

This was announced in combination with a push to get people to start paying, especially organizations, which would be charged $1,000 or more per month. Many companies made it pretty damn clear that there was no way in hell they’d be paying.
April 1st came and went and… nothing. Like nearly everything Musk promises, it appears this product upgrade will be shipping late. My assumption that the timing was based on a remaining engineer having completed a task he was assigned proved incorrect. Apparently, Twitter still can’t easily remove blue checks from legacy accounts.
Removal of verification badges is a largely manual process powered by a system prone to breaking, which draws on a large internal database — similar to an Excel spreadsheet — in which verification data is stored, according to the former employees. Sometimes, an employee would try to remove a badge but the change wouldn’t take, one of the former employees said, prompting workers to explore workarounds. In the past, there was no way to reliably remove badges at a bulk scale — prompting workers tackling spam, for example, to have to remove check marks one-by-one.
“It was all held together with duct tape,” the former employee added.
Musk did remove the NY Times checkmark, but only because he’s petty and they were public in announcing their total lack of interest in paying. Seriously, the man seems incapable of not lashing out if anyone even remotely suggesting his ideas are bad. It’s pathetic. Musk has also now claimed that the legacy blue checks will be gone on April 20th, continuing his infatuation with a weed joke that was never funny.
Anyway, the only change that Twitter did make was no longer publicly distinguishing the text that showed up when you clicked on the checkmark. It used to have an oddly worded message about how people were “legacy” blue checks and “may or may not be notable” (text that apparently Elon wrote himself). But that resulted in the people who were actually gullible enough to pay Musk to constantly get mocked in the replies with this common meme.
Now, however, you can’t tell who paid and who’s a legacy, except if you’re using the API where it’s still distinguished. But regular users can’t tell, thus allowing Musk and Twitter to play ignorant and pretend that more people are actually paying. This is kind of funny, because Musk was so proud of the different language between paying blue checks and legacy blue checks because he thought it would lead to the legacy ones being mocked… but he bet wrong, so now has to merge the two to confuse people.
Also, it turns out that for all the talk of getting companies to pay upwards of $1,000 to retain their own checkmarks, Musk must have realized that this wasn’t going to fly, so they’ve quietly given the checkmark free to the 10,000 most followed companies and the top 500 advertisers.
So… all of that is hiding who is actually paying.
And the fact is, not many people who were (are?) legacy blue checks seem to have any interest in paying. According to reporter Matt Binder, it appears that it’s basically a rounding error:
Only 12,305 of roughly 420,000 legacy verified accounts have subscribed to a paid Twitter Blue plan as of Tuesday. That’s just above 3 percent of the celebrities, pro athletes, influencers, and media personalities who make up the platform’s power users.
Now, sure, it’s likely that many of the 420,000 (you’d think Musk would have liked that number…) legacy verified accounts aren’t all that special or important, but some of them clearly are, and many of them are key drivers of traffic to the site. And Musk’s plan to make them pay has completely backfired to the point that around 3% were interested in paying. That’s astoundingly bad.
As for the media accounts, Musk seems mad that they won’t pay, complaining that “It’s a small amount of money, so I don’t know what their problem is.” The world’s richest man (surprise surprise) doesn’t realize that $1,000 per month is not, at all, “a small amount of money” to pay for something with not just no clear value, but mostly negative value.
Generally, when free services put up some sort of premium offering, the bare minimum they hope to convert is 5%, with many organizations hoping for 7 to 10%. And that’s when you’re talking about just straight up charging everyone who’s using your free service. Here, we’re talking about something that Elon (falsely) believes is some sort of premium offering, targeting many of those who were already deemed relatively important on the site, meaning any estimate would have to assume a higher than normal conversion rate. And here, he’s at 3%.
That’s… pathetic.
And, because of the way this has been done, he’s making the entire platform less trustworthy and less welcoming for many of the users who make the platform worthwhile. Truly a visionary genius at work.
Filed Under: elon musk, twitter blue, verified
Companies: twitter


Comments on “Formerly Verified Users Aren’t Buying The Twitter Blue Elon Musk Is Selling”
I ended up closing my twitter account.
Musk's "genius"...
Has previously come in industries with large built-in institutional inefficiencies (auto, space, boring) and devising new processes and products that allowed him to compete and win against slower incumbents. He isn’t the only guy who has ever pulled this off, but he’s the only one who was able to do it successfully in aerospace or automotive.
In his successful businesses Musk is an “operations guy” that can make companies run more efficiently, but for some reason that isn’t what he’s been doing with Twitter.
While Twitter’s internal tools (manual updates from spreadsheets??) seem to have not been properly upgraded from its days as a small start-up, it’s clear that Musk had other ideas about where the “inefficiencies” lay within the company. Unless his purchase of Twitter was purely to provide himself a political platform, he really needed and modernize the company’s internals before messing with the product.
At this point, Twitter still needs an “operations guy” to modernize and slim down the company, but Musk no longer has the credibility to pull it off. He needs to appoint a CEO and take a step back.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
His problem is that he hasn’t fired enough people. The less people there are, the more harderer they work. It’s simple facts.
Re: Re:
This is BS. The more people you fire, the less likely your remaining employees will work (because, you know, they’ll be wondering when they’ll get fired), and the less stable your company is overall. Especially if you just fire a huge number of people without trying to find people to replace them. Mass layoffs are quite demoralizing to the remaining employees, and makes it all the harder to find new candidates that are equally as qualified as the old ones. Plus, even if your claim was true (it isn’t), repeated firings have other consequences:
Bottom line: no, firing more people won’t make things better. It won’t magically “fix” anything. It will simply result in more overloaded employees and an even greater attrition rate because no employee wants to be overloaded with a bunch of things that they aren’t even qualified for to begin with.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re replying to a parody of a troll.
Re: Re: Re:
The person you’re replying to said “more harderer”. They know damn well it’s BS, they’re mocking that idea.
Re: Re: Re:
As others have said, you’re responding to a parody of a troll. But it is a rebuttal worth making, over and over again, because I swear to God every business leader forgets this at some point:
There are so many business owners and CEOs who saw the “end” of the pandemic coming as an opportunity to get more asses in office seats again, to recapture the “good old days” of 9-to-5 cubicle silos. They ramped up the rhetoric of competitiveness and economic headwinds, anything to threaten employees into being compliant little droids after several years of taking things on their terms. But these leaders aren’t seeing the returns they hoped for, and a non-zero number of them are desperately praying that leveraging sticks instead of carrots (you know, on account of all the money and resources they insist they can’t spare), eventually workers with less means to win out a war of attrition will come back crawling to them and surrender their work from home privileges.
But what we’re seeing is depressed graduates and workers in the US and China, the world’s two largest economies, burning out faster than ever and yeeting themselves out of the rat race. Musk is a particularly egregious example of a shit boss who has consistently espoused horrific working hours like China’s 996 work culture until even China found it to be no longer politically beneficial to shill. In this day and age, anyone who pounds the broken drum of hustle culture does not have your best interests at heart. Their best interests are their own. You are nothing but a number to such individuals.
Re:
He didn’t do that all on his own. To think otherwise is to give him far more credit than he deserves.
Re:
Even in his other industries, he doesn’t know when to stop inserting his ideas when they are not helpful. Never go full Peter Principle × Dunning- Kreuger.
Re: Musk's problem is more fundamental than operations
Musk apparently never grasped Twitter’s business model: sell a product (users) to a customer (advertisers). If he understood this, he would know it wouldn’t work to allow bad product to flood in (neo Nazi weirdos etc) and antagonize customers, who didn’t want to buy that bad product and would flee from its stench. Imagine stocking your grocery store with moldy, rotting produce. That’s exactly what Musk did.
Instead, cultivate the good product – the most attractive users, with huge followings, who don’t antagonize customers. If needed, start paying them for their participation. Stephen King was right that he’s more valuable to Twitter than the reverse. King gets paid to write novels, why not pay him to tweet? Just run the numbers and see what makes sense.
If Musk decides to supplement advertising with user-paid features, fine. But don’t do it at the expense of the core business. You can’t run the operations of a company when you don’t understand the business model and instead have destroyed it.
Re:
That is because the success of twitter does not involve an efficient manufacturer, but rather providing services to the general public that they find useful. So far his decision have made Twitter less useful and attractive to large slices of its users.
Re:
We know the reason why Musk is not doing what you described as being an operations guy.
Twitter as it was, at the point Musk bought it, a platform to sell ad space. Musk has consistently identified it as a software and servers platform (which is why it was so disingenuous of him to to state he’d step down as CEO and take the role of overseeing software and servers).
Oh and that is in addition to Musk being delusional if he thinks he is a (genius) operations guy since Musk is a hypeman, seller of “what if”s and as shown being good enough to get others to buy that and try to make those “What if”s reality. Which is slowly being confirmed by the mounting number of anecdotes trickling out of Tesla and SpaceX about how every time they failed to keep Musk out of operations things tended to go bad/wrong/not as hoped for.
Removing legacy checkmarks - wrong solution?
As it will probably become apparent quickly I’m not a designer or engineer of these things, but how hard would it have been to:
a: Change the legacy “verified” image(s) to a 1×1 transparent pixel.
b: Have the API return “not_verified” instead of “verified” (while allowing “$8_verified, “$1,000_verified” or whatever else to be returned as well).
and *then* tidy up the fields in whatever databases they need to.
After all, wasn’t the idea to not show all the (legacy) blue ticks?
Re:
Impossible to answer without familiarity with Twitter’s code. From what I’ve heard, making changes to it was challenging (in other words, it’s bad).
Re: in theory ...
Sure, in theory, everything you’re saying COULD have been done, but it would’ve required project planning, management, and … ya know … engineers to do the work.
Finally, critical commentary by MM on Musk and Twitter that is both reasonable and insightful.
I remain mystified by this change.
There were only ever two benefits (intended or in practice) to being verified by Twitter: letting everyone know who the real deal is, and as a status symbol. By letting just about anyone pay to become verified, it fails at both. It doesn’t help people learn who the real deal is, and being able to pay for it removes the joy in having felt like you earned it.
In terms of evening the playing field for verification, forcing people to pay for it automatically excluded a lot of people who can’t afford it, ensuring that only elites or bots can gain access to it, even more than the old system.
Seriously, that most people who were verified before or who wanted verification would be unwilling to pay for that checkmark was obvious back when Musk first announced the plan, and it hasn’t gotten any less so since then. There simply isn’t enough value in it to be worth paying for.
Heck, I know of one person who did pay to retain the mark but changed her mind after being ridiculed for it. Users don’t take it seriously, so why would anyone pay for it? It’s worthless.