/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Analysis: of the estimated 140,000 accounts paying for Twitter Blue, many are far-right influencers, the average has 560 followers, some are spoofs, and more

When Elon Musk bought Twitter last month, he made Twitter Blue, an existing subscription service, the backbone of his strategy to increase revenue.

New York Times Stuart A. Thompson

Context & Ripple Effects

Elon Musk made Twitter Blue the backbone of his plan to grow revenue after completing the acquisition, and an internal log showed more than 140,000 signups within days of relaunch. This analysis dissects who those early payers actually are — and the profile is unflattering for a verification product: many are far-right influencers, the average account has only about 560 followers, and some are outright spoofs.

Subsequent coverage has kept confirming the scale problem: by mid-January just ~180,000 US users paid for Blue and other subscriptions, implying roughly $28M in annual subscription revenue globally per an internal document, and SimilarWeb found only 116,000 of 2.6M March promo-page visitors converted, leaving Blue on under 1% of monthly users.

First-order effects

  • A verification badge sold at this subscriber mix signals little about account authenticity — spoof accounts paying for Blue directly undermine the trust function the checkmark was meant to restore.
  • Advertisers weighing a return to Twitter now have a documented association between paid verification and far-right influencer accounts, sharpening the brand-safety objection that drove the ad pullback.

Second-order effects

  • With organic uptake this thin, Twitter is resorting to price and product levers instead of demand: an $84 annual web plan discounts the subscription, and Musk promised subscribers half the ads plus a future no-ads tier to make paying feel worthwhile.
  • Musk's broader pitch to charge most or all users — which internal estimates suggested would lose ~$6/user/month in the US — looks even harder against a base where fewer than 1% of monthly users voluntarily pay.

Third-order effects

  • If the pattern holds, Blue settles into being a niche add-on layered on top of the ads business rather than the revenue backbone Musk intended, forcing Twitter back toward advertising dependence it was meant to escape.
  • The episode is a case study in the subscription scale trap: converting a free social network's users into payers requires perceived scarcity or utility that a follower-count-agnostic checkmark does not provide, pushing platforms toward bundling perks (fewer ads, no-ads tiers) rather than identity alone.

The trend: Twitter's subscription bet is drifting from a revenue-backbone strategy toward a discounted perk bundle bolted onto an ads business, as voluntary payment rates stay under 1% of users.

Discussion

  • @kenroth Kenneth Roth on x
    More people of the political right are joining Twitter since Elon Musk's takeover. I'm puzzled by the departure of people from the political left. We should want to influence those with different views, not run from them. https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @travisbrown Travis Brown on x
    Who is Paying for Twitter? Featuring data from me and @CaseyHo and software developed with support from @prototypefund: https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @migold Michael Gold on x
    also, a very specific kind of thirsty online gay https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @brendannyhan Brendan Nyhan on x
    Everything's going great https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...
  • @tonyromm Tony Romm on x
    oooh the NYT got good data on who's actually paying for Twitter these days https://www.nytimes.com/...