Category: Technology Author : Duncan Riley Posted: December 1, 2008
Tags : Twitter
An ongoing conversation about the viability and credibility of Twitter-based ad network Magpie led Brandon J. Mendolson to come up with a nifty idea: republish our perspectives on the issue (I don’t have a problem with it as I see “sponsored tweets” as being a close cousin to sponsored blog posts, as I get into here, and Brandon is firmly against) on our respective blogs. Here’s Sponsor Tweets: Your Unwelcome Twitter Uncle
From: Brandon J. Mendelson
Before media ownership limits were reduced, print newspapers were plentiful and profitable. The loss of competition and cost cutting to please shareholders caused newspapers to grow stagnant and lose readership. As print readership declined, so did advertising dollars.
Blogs allowed individuals to report news, provide commentary, and serve as a community resource. As they grew in readership, advertisers focused their financial resources on blogs over papers. Will those advertising dollars find themselves budgeted for Twitter? No.
Twitter is blowing up as a source for headlines, not content. Blogs that regurgitate news have been replaced. Why bother reading a blog that makes brief, pithy comments before linking out when you can get the same thing on Twitter? Here’s the catch: Twitter has only changed the way some blogs operate, not replaced all of them the way newspapers are being replaced.
The attraction to Twitter is that it operates like a conversation. Blogs, even personal ones, do not update in real time the way Twitter does. They shouldn’t. It’s social media gospel that too many blog posts or tweets turn readers off. Do you think throwing in an extra tweet, an advertisement, would hurt or help your chances of building influence on Twitter? Trust the gospel on this one.
Read the rest of this post on Online Media Cultist.
part post syndicated with permission of the site owner
Dec 1, 2008
I added the following comment over on Online Media Cultist, thought it might help seed conversation over here as well:
Brandon, very interesting take and thanks so much for your great republishing idea ! Now obviously we have very different opinions about this issue, which is what makes all of this so much fun to debate, poke holes in, pontificate about, etc.
That said, I'll just point out a several quick things that struck me:
1) You did not mention online media's role in the decline of newspapers/print media and print ad sales. Is it your view that online media had no role here?
2) You state that Twitter was not “designed to be anything” and yet you attempt to strictly define it as a place for “headlines” and “conversations” at a few different points. My view is that Twitter is a wonderfully open and flexible platform that helped to create a platform for conversations, link sharing, *and* a nascent publishing form called microblogging.
3) You also state that Twitter “is not designed for monetization.” Is it your view that blogs were not originally designed for monetization as well?
My overall opinion is that microblogging is brand new and flexible to many different kinds of uses (including monetization) just as blogging was in a similar position just a few short years ago. And newish platforms like TwitWall (which allows comments to be tied to Twitter comments) and FriendFeed are bending and playing with the “rules” as we know them evermore.
It's interesting times as I always like to say — and glad to engage you in this debate on OMC Brandon!