Even though Twitter announced its plan to push into paid-for-advertising back in November of last year...(we opined on that strategy on Nov 22..), according to one news media outlet, the blow back from the formal announcement yesterday illustrates that we tend to be slightly ahead of the curve..
"...Reactions to Twitter's plans to introduce adverts broke into two broad categories: relief that the site had announced a business model which might allow it to continue as a free service; and some doubts that they would be effective or popular..."
Since I'm not a shareholder in Twitter, nor do I have any investment stake courtesy of my multi-million dollar investments in private equity firms, I'm certainly not "relieved" that Twitter has finally gotten around to introducing a revenue scheme.
For those (including myself) that remain dubious as to whether the strategy will prove effective for advertisers, or popular for those that eat tweets throughout the day, similar half-empty glasses that were around when Google introduced its advertising strategy were equally cynical when that plan was unfolded.
Like it or not, for brand marketers, Google is to advertising what what oxygen is to breathing. You can't have one without the other. And that's what makes Sergei so happy.
Twitter says it will start with an impression-based rate card. I hate those.
Aside from the fact nobody can actually audit impressions with any real integrity or credibility, if I wanted to pay for a mili-second's mind share, I'd buy a bill board on the FDR, on an I-95 section somewhere in between Westchester NY and Stamford CT, or similar, high-traffic stretches in LA, or maybe even Florida (The latter is a coin-toss idea unless targeting geriatrics, and unless you're smart enough to use 3 foot fonts for the shout out message).
But for whatever reason, Twitter is following the lead of other high traffic web sites by introducing a CPM model to start, and at some point, they'll figure out how to introduce PPC; a model that smart advertisers will insist upon.
Which brings us to the topic of whether this new model will be embraced by advertisers. Of course it will.
First of all, "social networking" is the marketing cats' pajamas. Sheep travel in packs, and those responsible for ad buying are frothing at the mouth in anticipation of sending out that memo to the EVP of Marketing to update them on the implementation of their Twitter ad campaign, and how they've already spent the first $50k allocated for Twitter ads.
Do I think it will be an impactful way to promote a product or a service [from the consumer's perspective]?
Nah.
Everyone that I've canvassed has said they would never follow (click) a link to a product ad. Explaining why email marketing typically only makes money for the people that get paid to send out the messages. The ROI on email marketing has been dropping year after year for the past five years, partly because most people that have clicked on a link have found their identities lifted, or their PC's infected with malware.
I'd also argue that people that consume tweets are consuming upwards of 100 lbs of bytes a day. As a result, I'd insist their receptacles are overwhelmed, presuming their brains haven't already turned into mash potato.
That said, and as pointed out by a large audience of developers that create Twitter-compatible apps, The Kingdom of Twitter is rapidly moving away from open source to "Open-wide, it won't hurt a bit when we take it out..[for our proprietary use], and then you can close your mouth..[and fuhget about making a penny off of us..]"
There is one Twitter ad strategy that I think is great; famous and infamous celebs are charging thousands to incorporate a product pitch into individual tweets. Brilliant idea! I know that my client will want to pay Paris Hilton $10k for tweeting about one of my favorite products
No comments:
Post a Comment