Will Sponsored Tweets Survive?

http://hardlikesoftware.com/weblog/2007/04/26/on-l...

Hi there may I reference some of the content here in this blog if I provide a link back to your site?

I have been to your blog before. The more I learn, the more I keep coming back! :-)

I never liked the idea of making money from tweets, but Sponsored tweet is one of few programs which I actually liked...
Probably control over ad tweets is something which I always wanted..and since its been recommended by some big players..I don't mind trying it out...

I got here via a link on Twitter. It was from someone that I thought I trusted. Then that person sent a sponsored tweet, so I looked at her timeline (not being online very long I hadn't seen her entire history today).

I realized that the link I followed was a sponsored tweet-- which really aggravates me. Did you actually pay to have this post sponsored or did Ted shell out the money so you could try his service?

Not only was the link to this post sponsored , but this particular person sent three sponsored tweets in less than a hour, which is not the slightest bit valuable to me. I have no idea if she'll send more today because I've since unfollowed her.

I didn't unfollow her because of the sponsored tweets per se, but because I was irritated that 1.) this post was linked in a sponsored tweet and 2.) obviously this person is going to be doing this a lot.

Well, you've got your results, but I'm sorry to say that my initial impression of this post was soured because it wasn't recommended honestly. I thought the person who sent the tweet thought it was something I should read, but I find that you've paid (or were offered) to have this tweeted. You say that you don't think sponsored tweets won't work, but you use the service to get traffic to this post. I find that incredibly dishonest.

Here's the problem with Sponsored Tweets for SM folks. How do you get an accurate measurement/understanding of what folks are saying about your brand? If Joe Doe is being paid to tweet about Brand A, you can't include that as legitimate conversation. Getting paid to tweet completely messes up metrics.

@ChrisJones, you are correct sir! And thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it. In the two cases where I was being compensated (a fee for people who clicked through an ad on my blog), I was totally upfront and let people know.

DavidSpinks, great post & conversation you have going on here sir! ;-)

@Anyone who cares what I have to say... My random thoughts:

1. It takes two. The person on Twitter and the sponsor. Will you shun everyone you know who might consider sponsored tweets?

2. Remember that on Twitter you select who you follow. There is a WHOLE world of people on Twitter that you may never know and who could care less about an ad as long as they get the discount, scoop, etc.

3. To say that "That's not what Twitter is for..." is silly. Twitter had no idea what it would turn into for some of us, we made it our own, right? There are millions of people who don't use Twitter the same was us social media folks do. That's just a fact...

4. DannyBrown, Twitter will one day need our money...they have to pay all those investors back! (Typically it's $10 for every $1. That's a lot of $$$) So what you think Twitter is today, might not be what it is tomorrow and we will all move along merrily.

5. Don't forget that in traditional media advertising and PR go hand-in-hand. I don't care what a pub/newspaper says...there is NO separation of "church & state." Been there, done that. @JonBurg, the NYT is certainly about advertising...what do you think pays salaries? It's not your $2 (or whatever it costs) a day. Yes, people buy it for the content, but they couldn't survive on that alone.

6. Remember the advertorial? Well, we do it every day when we share our employers news, content, discounts, etc. So, if you think sponsored tweets are bad...remember that you are being paid on behalf of your company to do the same.

7. Social media is about business. But what businesses need to understand is that socnets are trendy. They come & go, people get bored or ticked off and move on. So, what happens to Sponsored Tweets when Twitter turns into one big commercial station?

That's it. I am not for one side or the other. My point is that we all need to look at the world of social media outside our own fishbowls before we cast judgment.

If I was the type of person to follow Ashton Kutcher, Kim Kardashian, Oprah, etc. I probably could care less about ads because they are talking to "me!" And yes, I get that the average bear might not know it's an ad. But that's why the phrase 'caveat emptor' exists.

As business people utilizing social media we can't be the moral compass for everyone on Twitter.

Probably not the comment you expected from me...but there it is. Who knows, I might change my mind when it actually starts happening.

When I select a TV channel to watch, I know the TV station needs money to run. Advertisers provide that money. Without advertisers, media outlets would fold. But I don't have a conversation with my TV. Or radio. Or newspaper. Twitter doesn't need my money (or else they would have monetized already).

I use Twitter for two things - making friends/connections and offering the potential for business partnerships. That's my advertising right there.

If I want to advertise further (like affiliate links, for example) I take that to my blog. People opt-in there and it's not in your face. Sponsored tweets is forcing me to accept advertising I don't want.

David & I have been tweeting about this, and I had mentioned a case of where a version of tweets that were sponsored worked. In that case it was at an event and the sponsored tweets were sent out by one of the event organizer in exchange for the company supporting a scholarship for an attendee. This may have worked because the audience was association professionals & as Lauren quoted me saying above, we have a different culture; one where sponsorship provides value to our members.

Do I think SponsoredTweets will work? I sure hope not, because it will ruin the credibility of WOM on Twitter for me. I'll always ask myself whether it's a true recommendation or something they were paid for. I admire Ted adapting this idea of sponsored tweets into the culture of Twitter (by letting people choose who they tweet about), but it still brings me doubt. I guess what it boils down to for me is whether or not the sponsored tweets will provide real value. There will be people that sign up purely to earn a little extra coin & I think that is what could ruin this easily.

I'm curious to see how it will all turn out...

I fully agree. This ISN'T what twitter is about.

But the NYTimes is not about advertising. It's about content. Good advertising works when it makes the most of the platform it's inserted into. And this is what Sponsored Tweets is trying to do.

Whether or not this succeeds will be about how early testers (marketers) show success. Simple sponsored messaging "Brought to you by BRAND Inc" is not going to deliver real value. Inauthentic messaging won't add anything either. This is a platform that introduces paying marketers to conversationalists. How successful it is will be defined by the conversations thereafter.

As a speed dating tool, it could be worse. But the value comes from the second date, not the pick up line, especially when you're paying for it.

David - interesting discussion you have going on here (very unusual for you ;-))

At any rate, I figured I would weigh in and hopefully not bog down the conversation too much. I, like you, see this issue from both sides (or try to anyway). However, if someone is willing to sell their Twitter stream to a brand or brands, who are we to say? I'm probably like Tim and would just get used the advertising. Ultimately, what's the difference between a paid tweet and a sponsor on your blog?

That being said, you and the Brand that sponsors you, should realize that some of the people they are paying to reach will almost immediately unfollow you because all you are doing IS advertising. Social media at its core is a 100% opt-in biz. If I don't want to see your advertising, I won't follow you. Companies need to be prepared, if this is the way we ultimately go, to not reach as many people as they had originally hoped to reach.

Anyway, thanks and look forward to the continued discussion.

David, what do you think of these two other examples:

1) I looked into one of the paid Tweet services and you could also opt to send out unpaid messages for nonprofits. I agreed to one cause even though it would never have occurred to me to send out a Tweet for this program.

It definitely has the goal of getting more exposure and I wouldn't have otherwise have sent the message (it is not spontaneous) but no money changed hands.

So, it's not really an "authentic" message (I didn't write the copy) but it is noncommercial. I wonder if that would also bother people.

2) I am less bothered by the occasional sponsored Tweet than people who try to win contests by RTing & RTing messages with hashtags in them to win a laptop. They aren't paid for these messages but they are more like spam & advertising than a Tweet that discloses what & who is promoting. What do you think of this #moonfruiting?

For me, it's all about the message/content, the frequency & the sender.

Here's an example: during Internet Week in NY in June, I believe it was Pepsi (I could be wrong) who sponsored a trip to a manufacturing plant by a bus load of Twitterers. Now, it varied a lot from person to person but for hours I was deluged with "informational" Tweets about Pepsi products--what flavors there were, how they were manufactured, how they varied in different countries, etc. For some people, it was over-the-top & overdone, dozens & dozens of updates. But, by & large, they were messages sent out by people I know in real life (who I value) and it was temporary. So, I didn't unfollow any of them.

If it had been strangers or if it had gone on indefinitely or if it was about lawnmowers or teeth whitener, I would have unfollowed them. But, for friends, for a limited time for a product I myself use, it was bearable &, occasionally, somewhat interesting.

I think frequency will be the ultimate decider for me. If it's one Tweet a day or every other day and I value the rest of the person's content, that's fine. If it's 10 Tweets a day, it becomes spam!

Unless it is a "Get More Followers!" message where even one Tweet is too many!

Great post topic David! My initial response to Sponsored Tweets was a disgruntled sigh, but now I really am indifferent to the idea. Being in a free market gives Ted the freedom to create this program and the fact that he is being thorough with disclosure is a huge plus.

The argument against sponsored tweets in regards to damaging one's reputation is one that is a personal decision...it depends on the Tweeter. If they want to be a part of sponsored tweets they need to understand the backlash that could come as a result of doing so.

I personally plan to treat this program similar to DVR. When watching a recorded program I have the option (key word, option) to fast forward through the commercials in order to get to the show I want. I don't see sponsored tweets being any different.

The biggest question you raise is whether or not this will ruin the two-way communication that Twitter has become famous for. Will it ruin it? Maybe, maybe not. There are two sides I see:

1)People who don't want ads in their feed can turn them off, skip them, block them, etc. This won't bode well for the sponsored tweets if a vast majority of the people do this, the program will end, and the traditional Twitter world returns.

2) (And this is my biggest concern too) Influencers who are looked up to for advice will become too focused on releasing sponsored tweets and won't focus enough time on releasing the valuable content that we crave.

It will be interesting to see in which direction this project heads. I know I'm ready to set my feed to "block."

Good conversation here, folks.

I biggie, for me, is the form that these sponsored tweets take. If there's no indication that it's a sponsored tweet, then I find it deceitful. To take the TV advertising comparison, when commercials come on, we KNOW that they're commercials. David, you mentioned that they've created a "disclosure engine." What exactly does that entail?

I appreciate when people tweet about a client and note that the tweet is, indeed, about a client.

(As an aside, I really like the idea that people can CHOOSE what they endorse. It's more genuine that way, at least)

Full disclosure, or I'm not OK with it. Otherwise,I'm fine with it. I can just tune it out along with the rest of the white noise we experience everyday or simply unfollow the people who do it.

Good conversation here, folks.

I biggie, for me, is the form that these sponsored tweets take. If there's no indication that it's a sponsored tweet, then I find it deceitful. To take the TV advertising comparison, when commercials come on, we KNOW that they're commercials. David, you mentioned that they've created a "disclosure engine." What exactly does that entail?

I appreciate when people tweet about a client and note that the tweet is, indeed, about a client.

(As an aside, I really like the idea that people can CHOOSE what they endorse. It's more genuine that way, at least)

Full disclosure, or I'm not OK with it. Otherwise,I'm fine with it. I can just tune it out along with the rest of the white noise we experience everyday or simply unfollow the people who do it.

Apropos of this discussion, there are a lot of people saying silly things like "that's not what Twitter is about," as if Twitter were a moderated forum. If by this phrase they mean that sponsored tweets (or what have you) will not succeed, that's one thing. But most of the time when I hear "that's not what thus-and-so is about", what I hear is "I'm afraid this will work and alter my enjoyment" of whatever the medium is.

There's a big difference between something that CANNOT work and something that SHOULD not work. To use a fishing analogy, fishing my favorite small stream with a surf rod cannot work - the rod's too big. But fishing it with dynamite SHOULD not work, because it destroys the stream, but it absolutely will catch fish, no doubt about it.

Similarly, if sponsored tweets works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I don't see any reason to think that it cannot do so, though I'm sympathetic to the contention that it should not work, that it fundamentally alters what most of us think Twitter is for, and what most of us use it for.

Here's my thing:

Maybe it could work. My company sponsors podcasts that are extremely relevant to us: for example, Grammar Girl. Why the platform of Twitter might not be the best approach, we have had a lot of success with it. I think if it's that target specific, it could be beneficial - depending on your type of org, brand, etc. Marketing strategy wise, it works for us. Does that mean it works for everyone? No.

Just to pose a question: If you have a community built, and say I tweet about a product or brand. Isn't my community more than likely to read about the product, even if its sponsored? I have their trust. If I don't do it that often and strategically don't push my agenda all the time, would it work? Just a question, not something I plan on doing! :)

David, I like how you laid out a comprehensive argument here both for and against sponsored tweets. I tend to agree with you that I don't know if they'll really survive. People already seem frustrated with the level of noise on Twitter, and added sponsored tweets to the clutter will only make it worse. I think Ted is approaching it from the right way in that he's being honest and open about it and allowing for opt-outs, but if everyone opts out then that defeats the whole purpose of the service. I think the arguments against sponsored tweets that you outlined above outweigh the arguments for.

Overnight profit is what this is all about. That can't work, we should know better by now...
It's fantastic how many people can't accept the fact that some things maybe won't be profitable, even if they are succesful.

To be honest, if from now on, every one of your tweets to me had a quick ad at the end of it David, I would probably get used to it. I'd learn to tune it out and ignore it. I'd initially have some questions about why you even chose to do it since I have my own perception of who you are and your beliefs, but I'd get over it eventually. I'd still talk to ya.

But what good does that do the advertiser? If gradually, 4 out of 5 people eventually learn to tune out the ads?

I think they key is being open and honest about it. If there's a disclaimer, I'll be more likely to be understanding of it. However, the question that arises is how do you monitor/police ethical sponsored tweets? For the most part, I think people understand that certain celebrities endorse certain products. Those we can take with a grain of salt. But for the average folk who's tweeting about everyday products, it's less obvious.

The big hurdle that Sponsored Tweets needs to figure out if stopping the service from becoming spam. If you have careless tweets and folks are spamming, Sponsored Tweets will get thrown to the wolves.

My personal opinion - I am against sponsored tweets. Social media is suppose to be out connecting with your audience. Sponsored tweets seem like you are forcing your product upon people. I'm with you David, I think Sponsored Tweets will eventually fade away.

I believe that companies should mix paid and organic media. Each has its place, strengths and weaknesses. I agree that companies should invest in building community, but I also realize that it is a very slow and unpredictable strategy.

It is analogous to search engine marketing. You can toil away for months or years on organic search or you can pay to be listed in the sponsored results and drive traffic and sales today. Organic results convert higher but paid results are easier to scale and control.

The best marketing organizations utilize a mix of these strategies in search, you will see the same holds true in social media.