i think that 'social media experts' who have 'if you follow me, i'll follow you back' written in their bios will love this. eww, this makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. bleh.
KNAN
· 6 months ago
Celebrities might get interested if big money is offered. What do you think?
Jim Mitchem
· 6 months ago
One way around incenting people to spread spam, but to still have valid and relevant sponsorship, is this: http://tinyurl.com/pygy23
Adrian Eden
· 6 months ago
The font on that website is extremely hard on the eyes, couldnt finish reading it.
Jim Mitchem
· 6 months ago
Sorry. That's actually the first time anyone's said that.
Jillian C. York
· 6 months ago
I second it - it's not the font but the grey-on-black that's nearly impossible to look at.
Jim Mitchem
· 6 months ago
Wow. maybe it's a browser thing. It looks perfectly crisp on in firefox (using mac) and in chrome (via pc)? I mean - crisp!
Lisawriter
· 6 months ago
Hmm, if you argue that all critics who are paid can't be objective, you could say the same thing about Roger Ebert, book reviewers and other pros. It depends on the critic's experience.
Adam Ostrow
· 6 months ago
eh, but Roger Ebert *needs* the content in order to review it, and people want his reviews of this weekend's new movies. Reviews of random products by random people for pay is quite a bit different imo.
Kage
· 6 months ago
I agree. It's Roger Eberts job, he loves movies and people want his reviews. He's not just a guy reviewing anything just to make some money.
Joe Brooks
· 6 months ago
@mashable *takes a sip from my Pepsi* I don't see a problem with this at all. #spon
HannaB
· 6 months ago
LOL
Nischal Shetty
· 6 months ago
LOL... LOL.. :D
Mark F
· 6 months ago
The hashtag will disappear with because it is forgotten or because people will see their following shrink by using it.
tomi
· 6 months ago
I agree - I can see how people with a large following would be tempted to make some cash on the side, but I think it's going to depend on how much per tweet is paid. Will it be worth pimping yourself out for an extra $100 a month? (Hmm... wait....)
HannaB
· 6 months ago
I'd love to see Twitter remain pure, but that's just too much to ask. If there's money to be made, people are going to jump on the opportunity.
Jillian C. York
· 6 months ago
Twitter lost its "purity" when Oprah showed up and the unwashed masses followed suit, with absurd daily memes and obnoxious bios.
Sandeep
· 6 months ago
After it launches, I am sure that lots and lots of new Twitter users will appear, who don't know how to write basic English. Wait and watch. BTW, I hope that Twitter will take some actions like Google did to paid posts on blogs.
Pete Codella
· 6 months ago
I signed up for IZEA’s SocialSpark a while back but haven’t posted or been paid for posting any sponsored blogs. I agree with Adam that such sponsored blog posts seem to lose objectivity. It’s like, as a public relations practitioner, sending an expensive gift to a journalist in exchange for a broadcast or print story. I’m not saying that doesn’t and hasn’t happened; only that it seems to fly in the face of what social media is all about. I won’t be using my Twitter stream (@codella) to tweet on behalf of paid sponsors. However, if I find a product or service I genuinely like, I’ll certainly mention it either on my blog or in Twitter, or whatever other channel I feel is appropriate. Why don’t these Twitter sponsors join Twitter, engage in the discussion, and promote their own product like the rest of the world? My thought: you get what you pay for.
Emily
· 6 months ago
I think you're right that as long as it is disclosed via the #spon hastag, there's really no harm to me as a Twitter user. I wouldn't tweet about a product I didn't like just to get paid, but if a company was offering to pay me to tweet about something I actually use, I'd probably do it. It's like we're all celebrities who can get endorsement deals. Some will be shady, but some will be genuinely interesting and fun. What is killing Twitter for me is all the Social Media "Coaches" and SEO "Experts." Too much meta-Twitter for me.
Dave Folkens
· 6 months ago
I think this will drive response by many who are just seeking a quick buck but also believe that most engaged Twitter users will be able to police some of this themselves. If someone is clearly just shilling products 24/7 they'll lose any established credibility fairly quickly and be marginalized or blocked from many users.
CantonDog
· 6 months ago
"Personally, I think any review – on a blog or on Twitter – is immediately de-valued if the author is being paid to write it, because the objectivity is lost."
So true...of course, DJ's on the radio have been paid for years to endorse products and talk about them as if they're "not" getting paid...but people don't seem to hold that in the same light.
It depends on how the tweet comes across. I use caution, paid endorsements aren't always bad as long as you're an authority. With "anyone" being able to sign up though, finding the good/honest ones will be difficult probably.
David Spinks
· 6 months ago
It was only a matter of time before this was going to happen. Do I think it will be as big of an issue as sponsored blog posts? No.
I don't see many of the prominent twitter users turning to sponsored tweets. It's not worth it to risk their reputation. At least on their blog, they can really express their opinion on the product thoroughly. On twitter, you can only really make one point without providing any sort of justification. The only users that are going to be interested in this probably don't have enough followers to even be considered.
The issue is then the increased value placed on number of followers. The actual sponsored tweets may not be the problem, but the spam that they inspire might really suck.
Dave Community Manager at Scribnia @davidspinks
journik
· 6 months ago
Adam, yep. It's absolutely possible to make a lot of money with Twitter. What most people dont seem to get is that you gotta plant seeds and the fruition happens naturally. Deliver value and the income will naturally follow. Instead, most go for the short term short gain and cannibalize their own followers... Farmers eating their own seeds.
Mark Finch
· 6 months ago
I find this whole debate interesting. I have followed it for years with paid posts on blogs. I remember well the whole M$ Vista Ferrari Laptop scandal. Personally I have no issue with people endorsing products and I think most people don't have an issue with it either. Just look at how much Micheal Jordan makes for his endorsements, and OJ made a killing (pun intended) in Japan. There are people who abuse sponsored content and become spammers but many don't.
Although I need to disagree with journik about the whole deliver value and income will follow. I see many great blogs that make nothing, yet deliver terrific content. Some eventually quit. We all know of blogs that are total trash that rake money in like crazy.
I don't know anyone who begrudges Jordan or other celebrities for their sponsored work. Actually most of us actually take those endorsements as a good indication of the quality of the product. When AdSense gave a commission for people who made referrals did any of you boycott AdSense or blogs that posted about it? Do you cancel your feed subscription to all those blogs that were posting on the Thesis theme knowing that they were receiving a commission for the sales?
Sponsored posts, tweets and other endorsements are a great way for marketers to connect with us and get the word out. It's a great way for us to make money for products we believe in, and ultimately it lets us know who will sell their soul such as what happened with the M$ Ferrari scandal, and those bloggers who provide no content outside of sponsored posts.
I'm with @mikecj below. Bring it on, if you are annoying me with spam I will drop kick you to the moon, but if you give me occasional, or particularly relevant sponsored content that you will personally endorse and put your neck on the block for then you might even get some link luv if I agree.
michaelrad
· 6 months ago
i suppose it would depend on ads tweeted, but i would most likely unfollow peeps that starting dropping this into my stream
Brandon Cox
· 6 months ago
Who knows?
Sue
· 6 months ago
I think this is a terrible idea. They need to come up with a better way to generate revenue from Twitter. Luckily, with clients like TweetDeck, you can filter out this kind of stuff.
sprinklepenny
· 6 months ago
sounds like just another form of commission based selling to me.
Moo Kahn
· 6 months ago
Terrible idea. RIP Twitter.
hans peter meyer
· 6 months ago
Ads on twitter? I'd probably stop following. Enough clutter in my life already.
Darren
· 6 months ago
Ted is a asshat. His first idea didnt work. Renames it to copy tools and services that were already in existance like Magpie. Why do you think your service is better Ted? It is already in the marketplace.
Jeroen Renirie
· 6 months ago
Streaming news video despite 15 sec. commercials on MSNBC... free! Great news and discussions on Mashable, despite blocks of banner ads... free! Any reason to imagine life without Twitter... priceless!
Kicklight Original
· 6 months ago
I would imagine that this new Pay Per Tweet scheme will focus on placing information/ads within related twitter accounts. John Chow or Darren Rowse would be targeted for making money online/blogging topics not something completely unrelated. Besides if they or other twitterers like the product why wouldn't they get paid to promote it? Also depends on the payment amounts etc. I don't think this scheme will ruin Twitter.
Chris Clayton
· 6 months ago
izea is slow, darren rowse already launched it :P lol
Yeppers Chris with you on that one, been done, and been doing it ;)
Therran Oliphant
· 6 months ago
*tsk tsk tsk* Twitter you disappoint. The rush to monetize and grab corporate dollars is imminent. This will change the way people decide to follow others. This is disppointing because I recently saw an interview with the Twitter founder and he said the the investors were "patient." I guess not as patient as the users.
I will block any users that send this junk, that's just nasty and disrespectful.
QueridaCampbell
· 6 months ago
Whenever I receive a direct twitter message that reads, "Thx for following me, I'm following u2. Check out this system for generating more followers..." or "Welcome friend! Would you like to get 50-100 leads a day from Twitter? Go here now", I immediately block that tweeter for all eternity.
mickerlodeon
· 6 months ago
One word: "unfollow."
Robert MacEwan
· 6 months ago
Folks need to understand that PayPerPost destroyed blog rankings over night. Google views Izea blogs as tainted goods. If you want to become a spammer overnight then feel free to pay per tweet.
Dave Taylor
· 6 months ago
This is really easy, gang: if you don't want to follow someone who sends out sponsored messages, then unfollow them when you see a #spon tweet.
On the other hand, when I post a "Check out my new blog post: http://www.tiny.url/" isn't that an advert? When I get tweets from people saying "Listening to XX speak about YY. Boring #conf" isn't that advertising with a direct, user feedback spin?
My point is that services like Twitter are, by their very nature, already a gray area with users living somewhere along a continuum of self-promotion and narcissism. So how different is what Ted proposes?
And what about what I experience: a company sends me a product to review, so I review it, dutifully disclosing that I got the product for free. I then send out a Tweet about the new blog entry. Is that a sponsored post, even indirectly? Would you really want it disclosed?
At the end of the day, if someone writes blog entries you don't like, if someone broadcasts tweets you don't like, the answer's always the same: unfollow.
_CEO_
· 6 months ago
You're wrong. This type of crap ruins the legitimacy of the service and plants doubt in peoples minds whenever someone chooses to mention any company, product, service etc.
Tim
· 6 months ago
I unfollow and block anyway when I figure out someone is using their twitter account primarily for spam. The #spon would be nice so I could filter it out but, as others have mentioned, I doubt it would last long.
ps. for what it's worth, I don't think Ebert is paid by the producers of the movies he is rating.
Thom K
· 6 months ago
We had Ted into the agency last week, and have been watching how his model has changed the blogger commercial paradigm. It is tricky stuff, and certainly when people know - or suspect - an opinion or recommendaiton is paid for it loses almost 100% of its value when it comes to generating social media awareness, affinity or referral. Traffic, yes, but...
But if we think of AdSense as the first rung on the ladder for peeps monetizing their blog/ forum content & conversations, pay per post is a logical, if not wholly pretty, next step in the commercialization of social media.
And as others have suggested here, when it starts to mess with our heads and Twitter feeds, stop huffing and simply 'no follow' like we've all been doing anyway with the current generation of Magpiers and direct spammers.
But here's a thought --- what if the #spon hash tag became Twitter's monetization model. Simple huh? Just like AdSense and the maturing media models that now support networks like Gawker, Federated, AOL Bloggers etc have kept good content free (say "thank you" TC, Mashable, RWW etc) maybe Twitter keeps the channel free and stays profitably in business by selling #spon Tweets.
"PPT" (Pay Per Tag), baby... and we're free to ignore or click just like we do with all our other online media.
raquel rita
· 6 months ago
i just would love if we could keep tweet in a simple way. love the quality instead of quantity, and hate when human beings start complicating something fun that started simple...
diptychal
· 6 months ago
John Mayer's little experiment is probably a pretty good way to guess how sponsored tweets are received - particularly from the users with enough followers to actually make the whole idea of advertising effective
This post (and the many interesting comments) inspired me to start a comment that was going to be a long one. I have a personal rule: If a comment exceeds three paragraphs, it's meant to be a post. And so i wrote one. Summary thought: Will PPT ruin twitter? Not my twitter.
_CEO_
· 6 months ago
YES and it already has.
Dan Sherman
· 6 months ago
On the contrary, I think it will improve the twittersphere. Perhaps someone who has something valuable to say via a twitter stream will now justify their jumping into the twittersphere because they now can get compensated for their words, or art, or pictures... or whatever it is that is of value to tweet.
Free content is basically worth what you pay for it. What if money were funneled in an organic way, to those that have something worthwhile to say on twitter? Think about that. The people who don't have anything great to say and no one wants to listen to, will not get much pay anyway, since their followership will be less. It's called free markets and capitalism. Read up on it. :-)
Cheers! Dan
Street Parlay
· 6 months ago
I think this will ruin twitter and spread nothing but spam throughout the site. Just like Myspace and even music in general, once the corporations come the magic is gone. Twitter barely had any magic so....whatever
nhakhoathammy
· 6 months ago
I think that will bring that amount to the business and for poor students
Josh
· 5 months ago
Didn't Izea already do this with SocialSpark? I think they did. I also don't see how a paid review is devalued by the fact that it's paid. I have real issues with PayPerPost, though Izea controls both, because PPP still gives the almighty Advertiser the ability to request positive feedback only while SocialSpark's Publishers get paid no matter if the review is negative or positive, but that's not really the issue.
I think you get a lot of hypocrites when you get into what's allowed and not allowed on the web, especially when it comes to advertising. Don't tell me you don't write about specific subjects in a specific tone to keep your visitors coming and your advertisers paying. It's the nature of things.
briancarter
· 5 months ago
TweetROI (http://www.tweetroi.com/) will launch on July 6th, 2009. We've been working on that since January 2009. We allow the Twitterer to choose campaigns, personalize the tweet, and schedule it. There's also technology in place for hashtag disclosure in compliance with the spirit of the FTC's regulation. Full info here at the blog: http://www.tweetroi.com/blog
toddmeadows
· 4 months ago
Hate spam, but don't see much of a problem with sponsors, or the occasional ad. If one has a problem with either, they can revert to reading the updates from @mooch that say some like, "Checking out the products at Gitzurone Market and eating all the samples!"
Christine
· 4 months ago
Actually, the sponsored tweets and sponsored blogs are very different. I've signed up for both and there's a big difference. For one, the sponsored blog posts are generally about a specific product or website. If I've used the product or visited the website, I'll do a post about it like any other review I've done (and I"ve done books and products for free stuff as well as for pay). I give my honest opinion and I am totally transparent about the post. With the sponsored tweets, so far, it goes like this. I get a message saying someone wants me to tweet for them. I take a look at what it is, and approve or decline the ad. So far, it's been things like go see this special deal at this store with a link. I've sent TONS of tweets out like that, both things I've found myself and retweeting others. AND some of those were for people direct websites where they were selling stuff... I saw nothing wrong with me passing on stuff like that, so why shouldn't the bigger stores, like KMart, Target, Sears, etc. pay me to do the same thing? Anything that I wouldn't want to be associated with I can decline, if the ad is too spamming, I can decline... I don't feel like I"m risking my twitter reputation because I have total control over what's being tweeted and how often. With magpie, you didn't have that much control, it would automatically send stuff out in specified intervals... that was annoying! I didn't sign up for that because of the spam quality.
What I sent out on my twitter account, was ONE tweet, sending out a link to a special announcement, ONCE and then I got paid over $9 for it. I think my reputation can handle one tweet now and then that is "sponsored".
All Comments
So true...of course, DJ's on the radio have been paid for years to endorse products and talk about them as if they're "not" getting paid...but people don't seem to hold that in the same light.
It depends on how the tweet comes across. I use caution, paid endorsements aren't always bad as long as you're an authority. With "anyone" being able to sign up though, finding the good/honest ones will be difficult probably.
I don't see many of the prominent twitter users turning to sponsored tweets. It's not worth it to risk their reputation. At least on their blog, they can really express their opinion on the product thoroughly. On twitter, you can only really make one point without providing any sort of justification. The only users that are going to be interested in this probably don't have enough followers to even be considered.
The issue is then the increased value placed on number of followers. The actual sponsored tweets may not be the problem, but the spam that they inspire might really suck.
Dave
Community Manager at Scribnia
@davidspinks
Although I need to disagree with journik about the whole deliver value and income will follow. I see many great blogs that make nothing, yet deliver terrific content. Some eventually quit. We all know of blogs that are total trash that rake money in like crazy.
I don't know anyone who begrudges Jordan or other celebrities for their sponsored work. Actually most of us actually take those endorsements as a good indication of the quality of the product. When AdSense gave a commission for people who made referrals did any of you boycott AdSense or blogs that posted about it? Do you cancel your feed subscription to all those blogs that were posting on the Thesis theme knowing that they were receiving a commission for the sales?
Sponsored posts, tweets and other endorsements are a great way for marketers to connect with us and get the word out. It's a great way for us to make money for products we believe in, and ultimately it lets us know who will sell their soul such as what happened with the M$ Ferrari scandal, and those bloggers who provide no content outside of sponsored posts.
I'm with @mikecj below. Bring it on, if you are annoying me with spam I will drop kick you to the moon, but if you give me occasional, or particularly relevant sponsored content that you will personally endorse and put your neck on the block for then you might even get some link luv if I agree.
Great news and discussions on Mashable, despite blocks of banner ads... free!
Any reason to imagine life without Twitter... priceless!
http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/04/01/p...
http://www.ted.me/sponsored-tweet
On the other hand, when I post a "Check out my new blog post: http://www.tiny.url/" isn't that an advert? When I get tweets from people saying "Listening to XX speak about YY. Boring #conf" isn't that advertising with a direct, user feedback spin?
My point is that services like Twitter are, by their very nature, already a gray area with users living somewhere along a continuum of self-promotion and narcissism. So how different is what Ted proposes?
And what about what I experience: a company sends me a product to review, so I review it, dutifully disclosing that I got the product for free. I then send out a Tweet about the new blog entry. Is that a sponsored post, even indirectly? Would you really want it disclosed?
At the end of the day, if someone writes blog entries you don't like, if someone broadcasts tweets you don't like, the answer's always the same: unfollow.
ps. for what it's worth, I don't think Ebert is paid by the producers of the movies he is rating.
But if we think of AdSense as the first rung on the ladder for peeps monetizing their blog/ forum content & conversations, pay per post is a logical, if not wholly pretty, next step in the commercialization of social media.
And as others have suggested here, when it starts to mess with our heads and Twitter feeds, stop huffing and simply 'no follow' like we've all been doing anyway with the current generation of Magpiers and direct spammers.
But here's a thought --- what if the #spon hash tag became Twitter's monetization model. Simple huh? Just like AdSense and the maturing media models that now support networks like Gawker, Federated, AOL Bloggers etc have kept good content free (say "thank you" TC, Mashable, RWW etc) maybe Twitter keeps the channel free and stays profitably in business by selling #spon Tweets.
"PPT" (Pay Per Tag), baby... and we're free to ignore or click just like we do with all our other online media.
http://www.iphonesavior.com/2009/03/john-mayer-...
Free content is basically worth what you pay for it. What if money were funneled in an organic way, to those that have something worthwhile to say on twitter? Think about that. The people who don't have anything great to say and no one wants to listen to, will not get much pay anyway, since their followership will be less. It's called free markets and capitalism. Read up on it. :-)
Cheers!
Dan
I think you get a lot of hypocrites when you get into what's allowed and not allowed on the web, especially when it comes to advertising. Don't tell me you don't write about specific subjects in a specific tone to keep your visitors coming and your advertisers paying. It's the nature of things.
What I sent out on my twitter account, was ONE tweet, sending out a link to a special announcement, ONCE and then I got paid over $9 for it. I think my reputation can handle one tweet now and then that is "sponsored".