Twitter is merely another communication channel and should be treated as such.

I would like to see how they phrased this question to the sample because with so many rumors out there of Twitter moving to a paid subscription, are people afraid to admit that they will pay out of fear that Twitter will start charging users? I have seen other polls similar to this and while the majority say they would not pay, there are a few that would be willing to shell out a couple of bucks to them. And of course the people that do not use Twitter currently would say no to paying for the service.  
 
I would imagine that if Twitter did start a paid service that there would be people out there that would pay. I do not want them to go that route, but I believe people would pay.

Zero is a mighty small number. Total poll #'s and other demographics? Would be interesting to see who uses Twitter, for what. I find great conversations, like riding a bus with colleagues. Bus stops, riders off?

I was not surveyed but no mater how they asked the question my answer would certainly conform with their findings :)

Really? Am I the only one who would pay for Twitter? Mind you I would not pay very much, but with so many people paying only pennies, Twitter would still make plenty of $$. Twitter is fun and useful. I appreciate it enough that I would expect to pay something at some point.

I guess if you're over 55 you are just considered dead--or not considered at all. I think the results on media use for the 56-plus demographic might surprise many. My father played internet bridge until he died at 84 years of age!

I would not pay 1 cent per month to use Twitter, Facebook, or any other social networking site. These sites do pretty well without charging users fees. If they started to charge, I would move onto the next site.

If Twitter was a paid service from day one, people would have paid for this great new marketing revolution... but we all know it's free! Of course no one is willing to pay...it’s basic human nature...

It actually makes total sense.  
In the the field of behavioral economics, there is a tenuous line between Social norms (free stuff, asking for things without expecting a payback), and market norms (wages, fees, etc). 
Once you mix the two, social norms are usually muted. In the case above, if Twitter decides to charge money, it is very likely people will not pay a dime for it. Furthermore, they will just walk away with a very weak possibility of them returning.  
 
Thank you for the article! 

I am sorry I would not pay for Twitter, Facebook. We've learned how to use them enthusiastically but if they started charging it would be a different story. No reason to use.

Introducing money into the equation always changes behavior significantly. A large percentage of those on Twitter are self-employed, entrepreneurs, or the like. They need to extend reach and have limited budgets by which to do so, which is a huge reason for the popularity of sites like Twitter. Money would also discourage the free use of these sites for personal interaction.  
 
When you add money, then ROI becomes a much more important issue. But how can it truly be "inbound" if there are hard pushes to drive response, sales, etc.? That turns it into another push channel, which Gen Y simply will not respond well to. 
 
Thanks for the stats; I'm in the 0% as well.

Whether or not to pay for Twitter depends on how valuable the site is to your marketing strategy. However, it sounds like it wouldn't be very valuable as a paid service if potential consumers wouldn't be using it...

Why no results for the 55+ market? This market has many internet users, some well into their 70s and 80s. And certainly a majority of Boomers have moved online. To leave out findings related to this important demographic is disappointing.

Unfortunately, sad but true for me too :(

I found this quote interesting: 
 
"The survey of 1,981 Internet users also found that half "never" click on web advertising, with 70% saying they find it "annoying."" 
 
Isn't it great that more and more people are ignoring the interruptive marketing? That's good news for us inbound marketers. 
 
We need to work harder at being found when the customer is ready for our product or service. 
 

I'd pay for Twitter, and I know plenty of other people who would as well. Of course, paying would mean that people would drop off and it wouldn't become as valuable to news outlets, Google, etc. anymore. So how long I'd pay is the question.  
 
Which is really the issue with any company going from a free to paid model - it changes the culture of the platform - essentially making it less appealing and less useful. Changing the product doesn't do anyone any favors.

@amaaanda, you bring up good points. That's why I don't understand why companies don't charge from the beginning. 
 
At the very least, have a free version and paid version with more features. 
 
It's difficult to give something away for free and then start charging for it. 
 
If possible, charge from the beginning.

@Mike and to all the others on this site: 
 
 
 
I fall into the demographics of the 35-55 year old non-user of Twitter and Facebook. The real reason why I do not use these forms of social media is because no one who I know has shown me the benefits of having one of these accounts. 
 
 
 
On the other hand, I am heavily involved in using LinkedIn because a very good friend of mine, took out a block of his busy time, and showed me the VALUE of LinkedIn and how to use it properly. 
 
 
 
That is what good friends are for...that is also what sales people ought to be doing to promote Twitter and Facebook. But they have to do it like my friend did for me. Free with no strings attached. Friends and "good sales people" will GO the Extra Mile for you and they will want nothing in return. Why? Because they believe that if they serve the customer (or friend) first, then perhaps their friend or customers would consider using their services or maybe even "paying" for upgraded services if you are offering them.  
 
 
 
If you happen to be sales people for Twitter or Facebook, why don't you drop your Droids and iphones; get off your computers and laptops; and visit with your friends and customers one-on-one, mano-to-mano, face-to-face, and show them what you know about the future in social media and how businesses need to use this medium to grow!

ZERO percent? We agree, the exact phrasing of the question, or the sample, must have had a lot of water in it. Ask 1,981 people if they'd like to buy a bag of dog poop and ONE of them will say, "How much?"

"What would you pay for X" only works in context of a good conjoint analysis or simulated market. Given a choice, everyone's first choice is "free" or "pay me to try it" rather than a fair value proposition.  
 
However, when you start with a free price for a set amount of value, you set the market there. When you then try to raise the price, you face both the analytical mind that struggles to understand how a free service now costs money and the emotional side that hates being ripped off, which actually creates a premium barrier to increasing the price. 
 
Given both of those phenomena, it's no surprise nobody wanted to pay for Twitter. Now, a better question would be in asking how much companies would pay to pre-qualify new communities of interest (and I do stress the idea of communities rather than simply creating lead generation, since those are two very different concepts). End users should be encouraged to create basic content for free: the value add is in things like intelligent aggregation of users, information gathering and filtering, and the ability to track real-time trending.