Twitter Sidelines One Founder and Promotes Another

(UPDATED 7:24 p.m. Adding Evan Williams’ comment on his personal Twitter stream.)
(UPDATED 8:39 p.m. Adding comments from Biz Stone at Twitter and Fred Wilson at Union Square Ventures.)

Evan WilliamsEvan Williams. (Credit: Peter DaSilva for The New York Times)

Jack Dorsey is out as chief executive at Twitter, the micro-blogging start-up that has become famous in the tech world for a lot of buzz and little revenue.

Evan Williams, Twitter’s chairman, co-founder and chief product officer, will take over as chief executive and run day-to-day operations at the service, which allows people to broadcast messages of 140 characters or less.

Mr. Dorsey, who came up with the idea for Twitter and became C.E.O. when the company was founded in 2007, is becoming chairman.

“We had two very strong leaders here and we really needed to choose one,” said Biz Stone, who co-founded the company with Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Williams. As chief product officer, Mr. Williams had essentially been running the company alongside Mr. Dorsey and they decided that Twitter needed a single leader, Mr. Stone said. Mr. Williams has significant experience running start-ups. He co-founded Pyra Labs, which created Blogger (now owned by Google) and Odeo, for searching audio and video online.

“We all think Ev is a better fit to lead the company from a product perspective, an operations perspective, and a business standpoint,” said Fred Wilson, a partner at Union Square Ventures who is on the Twitter board of directors.

Mr. Williams announced the news on the San Francisco company’s blog (there are ‘s not a word now two words on his personal Twitter stream: “Big day.”). He said that the board of directors had nothing but praise for Mr. Dorsey, who “took Twitter through an order of magnitude of growth and two major rounds of financing, while safely navigating some very rocky waters that would have taken even more experienced leaders down with the ship.”

The decision is somewhat surprising since Twitter has actually become more stable recently, holding up particularly well during the heavy barrage of messages exchanged by users during the recent presidential debates.

Mr. Stone said that now was the time to make the C.E.O. change because the company has gotten to “a healthy place.”

But the company has no real source of revenue, and venture capitalists are starting to squeeze Silicon Valley start-ups to cut costs and prepare for tough times. Twitter is backed by Union Square Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital and Bezos Expeditions, a venture capital company led by Jeffrey P. Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon.

Businesses have started using Twitter, and the company is considering charging for commercial use as one possible source of revenue, Mr. Stone said. The consumer service will remain free, he said.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Twitter is a great test case about whether users value it enough to pay for it.

What revenue will work – users low bar to entry
Business profile Pay with perhaps a uptick if the post urls

The question would then be that twitter’s value is less about the technology and more about the people. So is the goal for Twitter to find out how to manage the people?

I love the turn of phrase “With Nary a Tweet.” Rock on.

I would gladly pay for Twitter. I think about $25-$50 a year would be about right. It is a truly useful tool in my online life.

Now that the service is stable, I’d pay too. Maybe like $25-50 per year. At least in paying Id have some expectation that they would stay in business. I’m pretty sure other “active” members would pay too.

I just cant understand why they don’t send out an email and ask for my credit card. It just doesn’t make any sense. What are they waiting for?

Why would someone pay to be a twit?

I already pay for twitter. Twitter is the only reason I have text messaging on my phone. Now, if I could pay for twitter and that would pay for all messages to and from 40404, I would go for that.

People would pay for Twitter, really? The minute they start charging is the minute I stop using the site, and I feel like that’s probably true of 90% of the people I know who use the site.

Sue,

I also would gladly pay for it. I also would be willing to pay up to $50 dollars a year for it but, I feel that in order for them to maintain the less active users they should try around $10-$15. Based on their estimated user base in July of 2 million registered users, even at a 50% acceptance of pricing they would be making nearly all of their funding up in a single years revenue.

Twitter will die if they charge for ‘consumer’ use. Its not a service, its social media. All its energy and potential for creative communication will wither. Would @joetheplumber been created last night, during the debate, and gathered 200+followers before it was over if they were charging? Nope.

I like Twitter and twit several times daily, but seeing that it is just a “for fun” online experience, I wouldn’t pay for it. I think that it’s this way for most people.

Similar statements could be made for blog sites. If WordPress, Blogger, Livejournal didn’t offer free services, I’m sure many would opt for free alternatives.

If MySpace or Facebook decided to charge, fughetaboutit.

Social networking services have so many members because anyone can just sign-up, log-on and jump in. Charging would impair that process.

I guess the real question is: does serving a significantly smaller amount of paying members and turning a profit (as opposed to serving the masses and losing the payoff), allow Twitter to remain relevant? Even though one doesn’t need to be a member to view other’s posts, I think the answer is no.

I wouldn’t pay for basic Twitter — and neither would a lot of other people that Twitter might want to attract. It’s fun but pretty unlikely I would have signed up to try it out if there had been a charge.

If businesses are using it, then a charge for them could be possible — if they signed up as a company.
Even some two-tier scheme of providing additonal services and charging for those could work.

But if the goal is more community interaction, don’t establish a barrier to that.

Eric from springleap October 17, 2008 · 6:47 am

The question isn’t whether a percentage of people will be prepared to pay. The question is whether the percentage of people will ACTUALLY make the transfer from paypal or credit card if they start charging.

We’ve done surveys on springleap where people said they would buy if we did a specific action, and yet when we do that action, converting “sayers” to “buyers” is the challenge.

So I have to take it with a pinch of salt for all those people saying they’d spend $50 or $100 a year etc if a payment method is introduced. I use twitter regularly, and if you asked me today whether I’d pay $50 per year to keep using it, I’d say YES. But if I had to do the transfer today, would I?

Charging would presumably eliminate the spam bots on Twitter.

Charging would presumably eliminate some of the users reporting merely what they had for breakfast.

Charging would presumably hinder newbies – and this is one service that I think most agree you cannot begin to truly grok until you have used it for some time.

So let’s add a nice healthy trial period before the monthly fees kick in.

Repeated service failures not kept people away though other services have tried to replace it. User love and loyalty is intense. Will the dollar prove mightier than the whale?

Twitter is a joke and a complete waste of time.

I wouldn’t pay for twitter. It is a social medium like Facebook, Myspace, Livejournal.

I’m at twitter for the laughs. If it becomes a paid service, I’m out of there.

Also, twitter is *not* that stable, not at all. Constant problems. It’s very buggy. Twitter seems to mostly ignore user requests for help. They don’t fix bugs for months, if at all. Even if they did, I still wouldn’t pay! If you offer a service, it should work. Hire some decent programmers who actually know how to fix something without breaking something else.

Twitter doesn’t make money. It has not business model. It will be a dot-com ghost by Inauguration Day.

Twitter is fun, involving and a GREAT idea !!

I’m a big Jack Dorsey fan and Twitter user.

I am greatly worried with this “change” in leadership. I wonder where Twitter will go now that Jack Dorsey isn’t really on board…!!
At a time like this Twitter needs all its hands and feet intact and communicating well to move forward. This decision and their movements only seem to highlight the opposite.

Where will Twitter be without a person whose idea, vision, and hard work led it to this point where it is recognized as – a contributive , convenient and effective service !! (not to mention stable as well…!!)

Bring Jack back !!

twitter is great – it needn’t charge so much, it could thrive on cpm advertising alone…

Sirs:

Twitter will not need to charge end-users and subscribers to use their service. The will charge companies for advertising, carriers for generating SMS traffic and for the sale of trafic analysis. Like Facebook, the general public (or the newspaper) don’t understand the revenue twitter generates.

Here’s a simple start to a future meeting with Biz Stone and ATT. “Mr. ATT, we generated $7M last month for you in SMS traffic. On the first of next month, we are not sending any more messages to ATT. We would like 5% of that revenue”.

Or better yet… a carrier just buys Twitter. $1B. I expect, just like Facebook and MSFT, a cash rich, savvy market-player will value Twitter by making a private placement. That the next stage for twitter.

I think that the revenue model for twitter will emerge and for Biz Stone and co., they will have the funding to shape it.