inquisitrlogo

 
Pimping your Twitter feed


Hey baby do I have a Twitter stream for youAh Twitter how we love you.

We use you to spread the wisdom of the crowd, to share our growing wealth of information and to fill the cyber biways with our mindless meanderings. Twitter has spawned a whole ecosphere of services that are totally reliant on the whether the blue bird of Twitter happiness is up to flying on any particular day. Through this all Twitter has existed and survived because of the tin cup held out to rich sugar daddies who let it willing share its services with the common folks for free.

Sure these sugar daddies are going to want to see the day when Twitter finally starts returning the favours and make them even richer but no-one seems to know how that is going to happen; even all these years later. That hasn’t stopped the common folk though from trying to take Twitter further down the alley and make a few bucks for themselves off of our favourite bird.

As Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins over at Mashable wrote yesterday there appears to be another bird who wants to join this communication love fest by letting us pimp out our Twitter feed. Apparently this service; going under the cutesy name of Magpie, will suck up your Twitter feed and spit back to you how much spare change your ego stroking is worth per month. You can tell Magpie how many times they can insert advertised based tweets into your Twitter stream; which of course will affect the amount of pocket change you make, but at least they will be kind enough to let us know it’s an ad by putting #magpie at the beginning of the tweet.

In all seriousness though I personally think this idea stinks for a couple of reasons. The first is that while we might try to monetize things like blogs and RSS feed I don’t necessarily agree that things like Twitter streams; or any microblogging nonsense, needs to be monetized. Hell IRC has been running since we could let two computers communicate and no-one ever thought to try and make money from it. Newsgroups have been around since before the Internet and no-one thought that they needed to monetize their daily conversations. That is because Twitter is even much more of a partyline type of communication than things like blogs. Twitter isn’t a matter of producing content – it is talking with friends.

Monetizing your Twitter stream for self gain is – to me – akin to trying to sell off your sister on the street corner for a few bucks to stuff in your back pocket. On the other side of the coin though I could see where this could be a good relationship between Twitter and its users if the in stream advertising was a co-operative deal between the user and Twitter. It would have to have very strong limits in place but I could see a shared ad revenue model for Twitter for in-stream ads where they get to pay back the sugar daddies and we get a few bucks to pay Starbucks with (or to donate to a worthy cause) – but only if we agree to it individually.

At this point though if I see Magpie tweets coming through on your stream – well – yer done – toast – unsubscribed from.











Comments


7 Archived Responses to “ Pimping your Twitter feed ”

  1. CoryOBrien
    Nov 1, 2008

    Couldn't agree more.

    Like Anuj, I signed up for Magpie to test it out, and quickly realized that I didn't want to contribute to the crapitization of Twitter. Even with full disclosure, it's basically saying that you're willing to spam your friends for a few bucks a month.

    I can understand when Twitter services and programs, such as Twitteriffic, need to monetize Twitter with an occasional ad, because they need to pay for development, hosting, promotion, etc. However, I myself have no need to monetize my tweet stream, and I definitely shouldn't be using ads to 'pay' myself for using Twitter.

    Hopefully others feel the same, and Magpie leaves Twitter the ad free space that we all want it to be.

  2. Richie
    Nov 1, 2008

    I actually tried it out and made some cash right away. Seems like easy money …

  3. Anuj,

    Even PayPerPost has full disclosure. The objection to Magpie must stem from the fact that a blog (when it is a blog and not a site) is assumed to have a personal voice behind it.

    In case of Twitter, it is PEOPLE telling you what THEY are doing. If every five tweets later, someone decided to tell you about a fantastic new restaurant because they are being paid for it and they have never even visited, it would (IMHO) disappoint their followers.

  4. Harshad Sharma
    Nov 2, 2008

    I am keen to read what people have to say, not to read some adverts. So I've written and am using a Russian roulette style magpie zombie kicker script that checks my twitterstream every x minutes and if somebody posted a magpie advert in the last 20 posts from various people… they get the boot.

  5. Perhaps the assessments handed out by The Honest Twitter Grader are close tothe mark ;-)

  6. kiwispouse
    Nov 2, 2008

    ugh. spamTweets? hopefully someone will come up with a adTweet blocker, so they can be avoided the same way i avoid sidebar ads, popups, etc on websites. advertisation is the root of all evil. right now you can choose not to follow those who are simply advertising themselves and their wares/services. to have a percentage of my chosen network, though, sending unavoidable adverts would result in an immediate thinning of said network, sadly losing the tweets that are worth receiving as well.

  7. as much as I can appreciate the sentiment against advertising kiwispouse how do expect blogs like The Inquisitr to be able to pay the bills if you run an adblocker – how is that fair?