Thread by @compound248

At its core, Twitter is a special type of platform.

In the below, Galloway is acknowledging that $TWTR is a content distribution platform that allows for UGC, social, B2B, & B2C to all coexist.

Twitter should take an active role in more directly organizing...

https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1272308114499547138

...that content.

$TWTR's business can be framed somewhere at the intersection of a truly neutral party and an organized cable bundle, but with more of a entropic nature.

As the cable cos (especially Malone) showed us during the 80s and 90s, getting a slot in the cable bundle can make or break a new content company.

Malone, seeing this, took stakes in BET, Discovery, Fox News, QVC, the Family Channel, the Travel Channel, etc. in exchange for...

...access to his captive eyeballs.

In virtually every case, Malone pursued a non-control equity stake (unlike Comcast buying all of NBC), which allowed him to stay decentralized and focused on building the distribution platform, while still economically sharing in the value...

...his distribution provides

Malone & Maffei would crush owning Twitter.

This type of mindset should be a layup for Twitter, if they ever get their shit together.

Having the right C-suite is critical to execute on its future.

There is no reason Twitter can't own a stake in content creation, and give it priority in their feed, recommendation engines, etc.

Twitter can make (and break) various content providers, many of whom are already reliant on Twitter.

By changing their algorithm to give certain users and certain content special roles in the ecosystem, Twitter could provide a thoughtful, behind-the-scenes bundle of sorts.

It should own a piece of this upside.

Customers value well-organized information. Subscription not required (although...)

Done well, Twitter's users end up happier, because this forces Twitter to upgrade the organization and understandability of the feed.

Whether it's via passive ownership stakes (ideal), control stakes (not ideal), or other forms of revenue sharing (see Spotify with @joerogan), this is an enormous, latent opportunity sitting within Twitter.

Much of this most valuable content is also fairly inexpensive.

Twitter need not pay up for not mainstream content.

Rather, look for the creatives that already have passionate Twitter followings and rely on Twitter. Look for their analogs that haven't yet inflected.

Rinse. Repeat.

Lord willing, Twitter begins to "get it". They must empower the right person to lead the charge.

Twitter's business should not just be advertising vs. subscription. It is about truly understanding the strength of your platform and looking at holistic value.