Should businesses pay Elon Musk’s $8 Twitter verification fee? PRs share their expert advice
Twitter’s uncertain future has made it a brand risk in the eyes of Aussie PR professionals. But they’re still telling clients to pay the $8.
Twitter has become a digital hotbed of chaos ever since new owner Elon Musk took the reigns. From advocating free speech and then banning comedians for ‘impersonating him’, to declaring a US$20 charge for Twitter Blue and then negotiating down to US$8, things have not been particularly stable.
In addition to waves of users threatening to leave the platform, Twitter has become a headache for PR and social media professionals who have to advise clients on what to do about an unstable platform with a questionable future.
On the one hand, according to Musk, there are more people using Twitter than ever. So as a marketing play, the last week could be seen as a success.
But on the other, it may become too risky to be associated with anymore. Not to mention the fear that charging for blue tick verification could open the floodgates to company impersonators and scammers.
We spoke to some PR professionals about what’s going on with Twitter and how they’re approaching it with their clients.
$8 is worth it for brand security and safety
One PR specialist who wished to remain anonymous stated that $US8 a month is worth considering from a brand safety perspective — even if a brand doesn’t plan on continuing to be active on the platform.
“If they have a handle that is the official company handle a paid Twitter verification should be seriously considered, if only from a reputation management and risk mitigation perspective — it’s a low cost option to deliver some peace of mind” they said to SmartCompany.
“When company reputations can be destroyed overnight while you’re asleep, $100 can give you some level of confidence that you are paying to protect a verified company account.”
Felicia Coco, co-founder and director at tech PR firm, LaunchLink Communications, agrees with this stance, raising concerns over brand security and the current lack of information around how verification will work moving forward.
“Will eight bucks a month be the small overhead cost for a string of fake telcos, energy providers, or banks to start scamming Aussies? How does Twitter balance its priority of upholding a reputable authentication process against this new financial motive to hand out as many verified ticks as possible?” Coco said in an email with SmartCompany.
“For brands, I anticipate a move to paid verification will be out of necessity to prevent ‘handle squatters.’”
Coco went on to confirm that LaunchLink will be advising clients who are active on Twitter to verify their handles as a proactive security measure more so than as a value proposition.
“If brands have a Twitter handle for the sake of it but rarely use it to engage with customers, I would encourage them to consider the “use it, or lose” it approach,” Coco says.
“If Twitter is not already core to your brand strategy, this is likely not the time to take any significant actions to make it so. Sorry, Elon.”
Some further clarity around the verification process came to light on Wednesday morning. Esther Crawford, a product manager at Twitter, tweeted that an “official” label will be attached to select accounts when Twitter Blue launches to distinguish them from subscribers. You can read the full story here.
“Not all previously verified accounts will get the ‘official’ label and the label is not available for purchase,” she said.
Crawford went onto state that “government accounts, commercial companies, business partners, major media outlets, publishers and some public figures” will receive the ‘official’ label.
Not all previously verified accounts will get the “Official” label and the label is not available for purchase. Accounts that will receive it include government accounts, commercial companies, business partners, major media outlets, publishers and some public figures.
— Esther Crawford ✨ (@esthercrawford) November 8, 2022
“The new Twitter Blue does not include ID verification – it’s an opt-in, paid subscription that offers a blue checkmark and access to select features. We’ll continue to experiment with ways to differentiate between account types,” Crawford said in the tweet thread.
Twitter is seen as potentially becoming a brand risk
According to PR and social media professionals, Elon Musk’s proclivity for volatility, as well as the potential for harmful accounts to return or flourish on the platform, has made Twitter risky for brands.
“We’ve already seen major advertisers like General Motors, Audi, and Pfizer halt their spending on Twitter and it’s likely this is just the beginning,” Felicia Coco told SmartCompany.
“Unless Twitter plans to incorporate a process of independent authentication to keep harmful and hateful accounts unverified, we’re opening the floodgates for a darker, meaner Twitter that – quite frankly, I don’t think brands will want to engage with.”
That being said, it may be difficult for some brands to work out where to go next. As some other anonymous sources pointed out, there is no other like-for-like platform to fill the gap. Some social media managers are having to draft reports on what opportunities exist on newer platforms and balancing the return-on-investment risk of them failing in their infancy.
Brands that are big on Twitter are also having to consider whether it’s worth walking away from the audience and high engagement they get on the platform.
Our anonymous source also highlighted advertising spend.
“Advertisers are risk-averse and when the ‘Chief Twit’ is himself spreading wildly inaccurate conspiracy theories and telling people how to vote, there are red flags all over this thing now. It’s implied permission for the rest of the twitterverse to go crazy,” they said to SmartCompany.
“I’m advising clients to go into monitoring and reactive mode immediately.”
And this could become a problem for Twitter. It’s unsurprising that the $US44 billion price tag directly resulted in Musk wanting to raise revenue, hence charging for verification. After all, Twitter has barely turned a profit in over 12 years.
Advertising dollars walking out the door will hurt far more than the users who are threatening mass exodus to the likes of Mastodon.
Perhaps we’ve all been asking the wrong question. It’s not about whether people will really abandon Twitter, especially if users are indeed up. Instead, it’s worth considering if companies will stop paying for Twitter.
Comments