140Char

Sponsored Post

Having spent some time running advertising with Twitter, I know how divisive it can be – and seeing as I know there’s a big group who split their time between microblogging and full-length blogging, I thought it was worthwhile accepting an offer for a sponsored post on the UK launch of blogging monetisation service Ebuzzing.

It’s fast and simple to register, and the main benefit is that you can achieve a good rate of reward for recommending or allowing services to advertise or pay for a post – but the choice of topics etc is entirely down to you. There’s no obligation to post anything you don’t agree with.

I’ve used Ebuzzing for a post on TheWayoftheWeb, and found it easy to use. There are three options to pick from – sponsored articles, videos served by a dedicated player, or videos and banners served in a syndicated player.

All posts are “no follow” within articles, and full disclosure and advertiser names have to be displayed, meaning no room for any shenanigans, and no risk of search engine penalties. And over 600 brands have used the service to propose campaigns including Coca-Cola, MTV, MasterCard, Toyota, etc.

So if you’d rather monetise your blog than your microblogging, then Ebuzzing is a simple and effective way to discover opportunities to do it for a decent reward, rather than struggling to optimise affiliate links for what might be small audiences, or having to go and attract direct advertising. And having seen an increasing amount of content providers beginning to use in-Twitter advertising, I’d hazard a guess that microblogging-related advertisers will be looking to place content via Ebuzzing in the future.

Register on ebuzzing.com

Twitter advertising is already in existence thanks to third parties including Magpie and Ad.ly, but details of the official Twitter ad platform have emerged in an article by All Things D’s Peter Kafka.

Image by Stefan on Flickr, used under CC Licence.

The plans are apparently evolving and there are plenty of details to be worked out, suggesting that the launch date will be likely in the first half of 2010, rather than in a month as previous articles have predicted. It’s also likely to be designated a ‘test’ rather than the total solution to monetising Twitter.

The platform is very similar to a Google model:

• Adverts will show up in related Twitter searches.
• Adverts will use 140 characters and will be distributed via third-party applications, which can choose whether to display advertising and share in the revenue.
• Twitter will work with ad agencies and buyers to seed the platform, but will move to a self-serve model.

It’s interesting that Twitter has waited so long to implement an advertising model which has been made so ubiquitous by Google – presumably they were waiting for a critical mass of users and search volume before the conversion percentage was likely to be worthwhile.

Conversion rates will be of immense interest, as the usage of Twitter search is likely to show big differences to a Google search – a higher proportion of Twitter searchers are likely to be solely interested in other users and conversation, and will be less likely to covert to purchasing around a search term.

It’s a good step in terms of avoiding advertising in general Twitter usage, and the fact third-party applications can share in revenue or turn down Twitter advertising is a good move, and could help third parties implement a freemium model to monetise themselves.

The 140 limit makes sense – but I suspect it will be challenged by advertisers who suddenly realise exactly how hard it can be to include enough information into 140 characters – remember how adverts tend to carry a brand name, strap-line, and a call to action?

The one thing it doesn’t do is allow Twitter users to monetise their own content – which is the route of third party ad platforms such as Ad.ly and Magpie. They work on the influencer strategy, meaning that I can display their advertising to my followers in exchange for money, and as far as I’m aware, Twitter doesn’t take any share of the proceeds.

I can’t wait to see the first case study from a brand which invests in both approaches at the same time – it could go some way to quantifying the difference between a search advertising route and a influential recommendation route with the same message on the same network.

Techcrunch recently picked up on a poll by Accredited Supplier of 1200 UK businesses who are currently using Twitter, and echoed the findings that ‘UK Business bullish in Twitter’.

Besides the caveat that the UK businesses that are so bullish are the ones that are actually already using it, there’s a little bit of interesting info in it.

Apparently 62% of UK businesses are using Twitter purely as a branding exercise, with 33% combining branding and sales, and 15% using it purely for sales (They might want to take a look at Dell making millions on Twitter for starters).

But then it goes on to reveal that just 14% of the businesses are tweeting daily, and 21% weekly. Which leaves 65% posting a monthly message or less – should that even count as a business using Twitter?

So there’s no surprise that 84% don’t think they’ve achieved a return on investment so far – but strangely more businesses would be willing to pay for ‘additional business functionality’ at 22%, than have actually claimed a return on investment (16%).

So maybe a better headline and summary would be that UK businesses are still mightily confused when it comes to Twitter. Some of them want more functionality despite not seeing any returns, and many of them claim they’re using it when they might log in less than 12 times a year.

They haven’t so much missed the point as built a dual carriageway bypass around it.

If you’re starting to use Twitter on behalf of your business, you need to have a quick think about what it is you’re looking to achieve and how it benefits your business – getting messages out there is somewhat useful in itself, but generally it’s expected that you might look at the rate of acquisition from a source, and the investment of resource it’s taken, and then weigh that against other sources of visitors/buyers/purchases.

Then you can not only determine the true level of ROI, but also potentially justify actually engaging on a regular basis and utilising Twitter as both a customer acquisition channel – but also as a customer retention channel. While new customers are great, it’s more cost effective to retain a current customer by increasing loyalty – and although you might need to interact and ask questions on at least a weekly basis, the amount of loyalty and customer service you can action can be measured as a definite return.

I suspect you could perform the same poll with most of the common tools – email, Facebook, Myspace etc, and you’d probably get similar results, because the same people have signed up without a plan after seeing the buzz, dabbled a little, and have no idea what they’re doing next.

Which means that there are big opportunities if you’re reading blogs like this, using Twitter on a regular basis and developing or following a clear plan with a decent amount of ROI.

For a while it seemed as if building a third-party application for Twitter was a route to instant fortune (as were Facebook apps before it, and iPhone apps after it). But judging by the eventual sale of Twitter link tracker and aggregator Twitturly, it appears that bubble may now have burst.

Since launching in April 2008, rivals such as Tweetmeme and Topsy have joined the Twitter aggregator space – and when founder Joel Strellner put the site up for auction, just 5 bids came in, with a final price of ‘no more than $8,500′ (HT Techcrunch).

Having said that, Strellner has moved onto other things, leaving the site with a Google PR of 6, Alexa ranking of 40,106, and most importantly, only around 1000 Unique Users per day. And less than 1000 visitors per day definitely doesn’t get the big bucks.

Twitturly

The only thing I can’t understand is why there wasn’t more effort to boost PR and visitor numbers immediately prior to the sale? Then again, the auction details reveal Strellner is working full time, didn’t want to invest more in costs (the EC2 server costs were apparently around $3k per month), and has also recently found his free time taken away by becoming a father (Something which I can totally understand!)

It will be interesting to see whether the new owner can make use of the 622GB data, the agreement to access the Summize (Twitter Search) API an unlimited amount, and a site which claimed 5000 UUs per day.

There seems to be a lot more interest in paid Tweets at the moment, whether it’s discussing SponsoredTweets, Ad.ly, or Magpie. It certainly seems like more adverts are being placed by these services, judging by the testing I’ve done of Magpie over recent weeks and months.

And apparently brands like KMart are using these services top pay Twitter users either on a per-click or flat fee basis. Meanwhile a host of celebs have signed up for Ad.ly.

Which is fair enough in many ways – after all, it’s down to each individual whether they want to put paid advertising into their Twitter stream, and down to each individual whether they’ll continue to follow someone publishing paid advertising.

But why are so many people trying to dress it up as engagement, relationship building or starting a genuine conversation?

It’s advertising.

If you pay me to post about a product, it’s advertising – that what sponsorship is.

It’s not creating a conversation – that would involve creating something which people might talk about for themselves, or creating an event where people can get together and initiate their own discussions.

Which takes more work than assigning a few thousand pounds or dollars to pay a few tweeters.

I have no inherent problem with anyone accepting paid tweets – I’ve done it to test Magpie, and continued to occasionally do it to cover my hosting costs etc – and it has resulted in a few complaints and un-follows.

And I completely understand why people have exercised their right to un-follow.

The frustrating thing is that so many people are talking so much rubbish about how a sponsored tweet can help you engage, that few people are bothering to actually try to find a model which rewards content/network creators in a way which actually builds on what they are doing, rather than interrupting it!

If you’ve got exclusive content, the main way to get value from Twitter followers has been to lead them to your own website – but Super Chirp! aims to change that by monetizing your Direct Messages within Twitter itself.

It’s best suited to celebrities, news outlets or possibly charities, but any publisher can sign up. You set a monthly price between $0.99 and $9.99, and you get to keep a healthy 70% of the cash.  Super Chirp! takes 30%, which includes Paypal fees.

As a user, you subscribe for Direct Message feeds via the Super Chirp! site, with Paypal payments, and you can then visit Super Chirp! to see all the messages and sort by publisher.

It’s an interesting concept, and one that’s covered in quite a lot of detail by Michael Arrington over at Techcrunch.  In fact, Narendra Rocherolle, CEO of 83 Degrees, which has also launched Power Twitter Firefox Add-On, initially wrote about the idea in a guest post on Techcrunch discussing the Britney Spears Twitter account.

As Arrington hypothesises – this could be one route to cash for Twitter itself, and Super Chirp! could find itself either contending against an official version (perhaps linked in to the new officially verified Twitter accounts), or acquired.

The trickiest bit will be deciding the split between content for building up a network, and content that will be valuable enough to be worth charging for – particularly when it will need to be chunked into 140 character messages. The nature of short messages lends itself to quick links and newsflashes – which is the kind of content which rapidly finds a way around paywalls – possibly leading to a lot of disgruntled ex-followers.

And longer form content will feel immensely disjointed – although there might be some promise in the Twitter novels which have risen up recently, or for some type of Twitter-based soap opera, for example.

But the main way I would imagine most people utilising this tool will be simply to privately broadcast links to exclusive content behind a paywall – which would be an email alert/RSS alternative.

As someone who has experimented with, and witnessed the backlash against, the likes of Magpie adverts being included in streams, and Twitad sponsored backgrounds, it seems slightly ironic that the main 3rd party applications to make money on Twitter appear to be short form versions of traditional display advertising and paywalls – the very things which newspapers are maligned for seeing as the sole revenue options.

Are there better ways to directly generate cash from Twitter when it comes to content? Or is it always going to be a publicity/network tool to drive revenue from elsehwere?

One way to monetise Twitter seems to be using feeds/information outside of the site itself – good news for sites and businesses, if not for Twitter directly.

Probably the best use so far is by Mashable, revealed today. In conjunction with viral scientist, Mashable contributor and Twitter uber-analyst Dan Zarrella, the site now has a widget displaying ‘Twitter Brand Sponsors’.

Quoting from Mashable:

‘Twitter Brand Sponsors is a small step towards our sociable ads goal. Here’s how it works: a limited number of brands (and one charity!) looking to engage with the social media community can have their latest Tweets syndicated into the Mashable sidebar, and interested visitors can choose to connect with those brands on Twitter.’

The first sponsors are Jetblue and Mailchimp, indicating that there’s interest at launch – it will be interesting to see how many companies are engaged with a suitable Twitter presence to benefit.

And it also removes the questions around the previous example of Glam’s Twitter feed widget, which displayed moderated #Oscar tweets in a widget with advertising:

Is it right to profit from user-generated content created on another site, and without the awareness of those creating the content?

Would advertisers, even those related to the target audience/subject get enough value from display advertising around Twitter content.

Instead, the Mashable approach allows people to see interaction from businesses (and charities), and decide whether or not to engage.

I have to admit, I’m wondering whether they’ll white-label the Twitter widget, as I’d be keen to run something similar!

It’s not exactly engagement or interaction, but women’s online publishing and advertising network Glam has been using a widget which allows manual editing of the Twitter feed around an event to ensure the content is suitable for advertisers (From Venturebeat).

The widget is available throughout the Glam network, and to third-party publishers, who receive a cut of any revenue. And soon even publishers outside the network will be able to receive micropayments via Paypal.

It’s a traditional model, but one which appears to have worked, at least for the #Oscars.

But it suffers from the traditional problem of display advertising – in which the amount of eyeballs doesn’t always translate to the amount of people actively clicking on an advert. Although the sponsorship in this case was for a skincare company, which is likely to appeal to a female-targetted content network, would positioning it next to Oscar content give it relevancy or credibility?

And what does it mean for people who use Twitter hashtags without the knowledge that another party may profit from them?

After all, they were originally used to collate information for aggregating information about fires in San Diego, and have since been used for collating conversation around disasters like #Mumbai along with mainstream entertainment and sporting events.

It raises the eternal content question of the internet – should aggregators be able to collect all the revenue without compensating the content creators?

There’s obviously been a lot of discussion around the plans for Twitter to monetise brands and company usage of the microblogging service.

Robin at We Are Social has a nice write-up of the current situation – as befits a company whose Twitter account has ended up on the front page of Marketing!

And I’ve definitely started having some thoughts about this – the main ones are relief that the monetisation will focus on value-added services, not the current level of access. This will prevent the possibility of brands and individuals being caught in grey areas between classed as people or companies, which is a line being blurred for many people, particularly those likely to be heavy Twitter users.

And I do think that there are ways to offer services and information above what is in the Twittersphere – I like and use a range of monitoring services, but they all currently have certain weaknesses that an official tool might overcome.

My only hope is that Twitter avoids falling into the same hole that Facebook seems to be digging at the moment – trying to force brands into using advertising by increasingly restricting what is allowed even on brand pages. Even with huge growth over the last 12 months (and even this year), it’s still not on a global scale to have the perceived power Facebook has – and if FB keeps becoming harder to work with, I can definitely see an accelerated move to more niche networks, and possibly even back to Myspace et al for brands.

The good thing is that Twitter not on

ly has a lot of ecosystem offerings to keep it honest, but several interesting competitors. Although the likes of Plurk, Identi.ca, Jaiku etc aren’t approaching the scale of Twitter, forgetting to put users first would definitely result in a search to one of the rival services. And don’t forget that Plurk is the number 1 service in Singapore!

Here’s the clarification on the official Twitter blog:

It’s great that both individuals and organizations are finding value in Twitter and there may be ways we can enrich the experience. In fact, we hope to begin iterating on revenue products this year.

However, it’s important to note that whatever we come up with, Twitter will remain free to use by everyone – individuals, companies, celebrities, etc. What we’re thinking about is adding value in places where we are already seeing traction, not imposing fees on existing services.

So I’ve been using Magpie to serve advertising within my Twitter feed for one week now, and I thought it was a good time to post the results and reaction.

I started on November 28th, warning my followers that I was about to start testing the system, and immediately lost one follower, with about 4 of the 1598 warning me that they would either unfollow immediately, or consider dropping me if it became more than a test.

One week later, and my follower account is currently 1669 followers, partly as a result of my normal addition of interesting people which has also seen my following count raise by a similar amount.

Magpie offers the ability to set the ratio of advertising to normal messages, and I’ve stuck with the 5:1 default ratio as a starting point to see how much inventory was served – within 7 days, and with around 500+ tweets, Magpie has so far served three advertising messages, earning me a little over 10 Euros.

So far, since the initial response to the test I’ve not had a single message regarding the advertising place in my tweets, and I’m not aware of anyone responding unfavourably.

Reaction so far:

So far it’s seemed that Magpie’s inventory means the adverts being served are closer to the maximum 200:1 ratio than 5:1, which is probably a good thing – particular after the adverse reaction it generated on launch.

It’s made me think that perhaps rather than a tweet to ad ratio (As the number of tweets can vary enormously for any user per day), perhaps there should also be an adverts per day ratio, if the inventory being served increases. I do wonder how many potential advertisers were dissuaded by the outcry on Twitter, and whether the inventory will increase now that the dust has settled.

It also means that it will take 5 weeks for me to reach the minimum payout of 50 Euros at current rates – not terrible when compared to Google Adsense etc, and also not bad for something which wasn’t really monetised until now (I am also trialling Twittad to see if monetising Twitter profile backgrounds is realistic)

I’m definitely intending to keep the test going for a while longer to see what happens to advertising ratios, and to see if there is any more response to the presence of adverts in my Twitter feed (Also to see if the payout system works).

Incidentally, it’s also running on the 140char test account: @140char_com, which I’m going to be using more in the future to test services which may carry an element of risk to them, after the growing concerns that various 3rd party applications require both your Twitter username and password. This way I can identify which services are a real risk without running the chance of compromising my main personal account which I’ve built up over 18 months or so! With just 18 followers, the first ad paid just 0.02 Euros!

Let me know if you’ve been using the service, or your reaction to it, particularly if you’ve unfollowed me because of it!

I should have really put this in my last post, ‘Testing Magpie advertising within Tweets‘. If you want to see if anyone is using the service at the moment, check out a Twitter Search for #magpie.

And I have to feel sorry for the unfortunate Twitter user @magpie, who isn’t anything to do with the service (Their Twitter account is @beamagpie).

Oh, and if you happen to sign up, why not help fund www.140char.com for the futre by using this link? http://be-a-magpie.com/bkq4mw

And here’s a nice graph of what’s happening (should dynamically update from time of posting!)

There’s been quite a lot of discussion around the Magpie Network advertising service for Twitter, and whether it’s a good or bad thing. Such as ReadWriteWeb, Jeremiah Owyang, and Techcrunch.

I bet the Twitter team are looking at the responses with interest!

But James Cridland picked up on an incredibly effective and authentic Word of Mouth event on Twitter. I’ll summarise, so you can go and read the full article, ‘Word of Mouse – @stephenfry sells bucketloads of Tweetie‘. Hugely popular celebrity and ‘proper’ Tweeter Stephen Fry mentioned some Twitter clients, received a recommendation for a paid client for the iPhone, posted a positive review of it, and gained a huge number of responses from people who appear to have paid for the client on his recommendation.

Who would have though that an influential celebrity who is authentically using a service could have a direct effect on a product? I’m off to persuade U.S. basketball legend Shaquille O’Neal he should be promoting 140char!