In-Stream Twitter Ads: You’re Already Doing Them [Yes, You]
November 23, 2009
Filed Under: in Analysis, Real-Time Web, Sharing, Social Media
Author: Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins
Welcome back.
I’ve never been all that silent on the subject of in-stream Twitter advertising, and since it’s the topic du jour today, I thought I’d weigh in on the blog post over the weekend that seemed to be the furthest out of line from the rest of them: Robert Scoble’s post entitled “More thoughts on in-Tweet advertising.”
The post wasn’t all bad, and covered a lot of ground, but when it meandered into the specifics of how in-stream advertising should be, it really seemed to be off-base from what I view as correct and feasible. Mostly, though, I think it bears rebuttal simply because Scoble has a pretty large soapbox from which to put forth his views, and these views could use some critical analysis.
Part of the problem is that his views are rooted in personal preference and opinion, rather than the hard numbers. Witness (from his four reasons he really doesn’t like in-tweet advertising):
1. I like a strict firewall between editorial (er, words you write) and advertising (words someone else writes that they pay to put in front of your audience).
Like we’ve enumerated many times, Twitter isn’t the only place that content is mixed with paid placement. It happens in blogs, on podcasts and not just at rinky-dink joints, either. Techcrunch, Mashable, ReadWriteWeb and even Leo Laporte’s TWiT network all participate in the seamless integration of sponsored posts / spots with editorial content.
Other Coverage Today on Twitter and Advertising
Twitter Will Introduce an Advertising Model and It May Look Like This
The Case for In-Stream Advertising
How To Become Fabulously Wealthy From Ads in your Twitter-stream
If you want to get real technical about it, Robert Scoble does this, too. The main difference here is that his sponsorship is sold at a premium, and he has one primary sponsor: Rackspace (disclosure – Rackspace sponsors SiliconANGLE as well). We love Rackspace, and undoubtedly Robert does as well. We agreed to the sponsorship arrangement because we believe in their product, as does Robert. We feel comfortable dropping them into conversations, posts and tweets and not getting accused of shilling, as a result.
That doesn’t mean that the metaphysic firewall is somewhat lowered between editorial and advertising, though (even if the “physical” firewall is less apparent). There’s clearly money that’s changed hands in both Robert’s case and SiliconANGLE’s case… but people still trust both of us.
Bottom line: there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that firewall not being in place.
In-stream Ads Aren’t Priced Properly – or Are They?
Robert continues down the list:
2. I don’t think the ad models out there price things properly. 10 people are not the same. Here, let’s say I have 10 people who are poor. Is that list worth the same as, say, 10 people who will buy a house in the next month? No way. Yet on Twitter and other streams we just don’t know enough about audiences to price ads properly.
I think this is a somewhat weak argument. No forms of online advertising have the lock on income levels. AdSense doesn’t allow you to pick only advertisers who have high incomes. Facebook doesn’t allow you to pick by income level (reliably). Even sources like Quantcast that allow you to make decisions about audience and which site you’ll advertise on doesn’t allow you to pick reliably by income level – they’re all best guesses based on survey data. It’s a fact of life.
The Facebook Project Beacon Argument
3. If Twitter or Facebook becomes infested with instream ads it will piss everyone off and we’ll all leave, so any investment in building audiences in those systems will be destroyed by the greed of other people (I don’t run ads, but if I’m the only one who doesn’t then it doesn’t matter because no one will stay there. Already on Twitter I’ve seen even good friends, like Chris Pirillo, run tons of ads — I unfollowed him because I got tired of it).
This simply isn’t true. Robert may have unfollowed Pirillo to make a point, but in general, this behavior isn’t pervasive. I’ve had a grand total of about five people unfollow me personally because of ads I’ve run in my tweets, and I’ve been running them since the days when Sarah Lacy, Mike Arrington and Marshall Kirkpatrick had a hate-on for advertising on Twitter.
The truth is that most people understand that there will be advertising in Twitter, as there is everywhere. Even Mark Suster, who posted earlier today on this topic here at SiliconANGLE, says that while he doesn’t enjoy ads, he understands the need for them:
I feel the same feeling about advertising as most consumers. I feel it’s a necessary evil. Yes, I often skip commercials when I watch on my PVR. But I also accept and appreciate the ads in Hulu because I know that I’m watching shows for free. I know that advertising is important to inform consumers of offers – the same reason many tech companies use SEM.
He’s an investor in Ad.ly, a major (if not newer) player in the Twitter ad game. If we’re going to have ads on Twitter (and trust me, we will have ads on Twitter no matter what), shouldn’t we have an ad program that rewards the users as well as the owners of the servers?
Advertisers are Getting Ripped Off?
Robert goes into his final point:
4. I believe advertisers are getting ripped off, because some ad systems aren’t sharing the REAL value of a person’s audience and is using just lame metrics like number of followers to price out ads. When advertisers get ripped off, they figure it out pretty quickly and tell everyone that the system is screwed and to avoid at all costs. That sort of happened with Second Life (I worked at Microsoft and we put lots of money into an island’s design and didn’t get the return we should have).
This isn’t the case I’m seeing, and that’s coming from someone that is an advocate for in-stream Twitter advertising but has no real skin in the game. As I talked about a month ago, I pay one of my utility bills via Twitter advertising, and as I’ve talked about in the past, I’ve run Twitter ad campaigns on Magpie before. There are certain kinds of advertising that do well there, and certain kinds that just completely tank.
Fortunately, it’s the ads that are of higher quality and lead to interaction rather than affiliate sales that seem to do the best – which is a good ecosystem to have. It rewards the right kind of behavior, and exactly the kind of ads we all hate to see are the ones that will be punished for trying this sort of activity.
Are there problems with in-stream ads? Sure. I’ve never been shy about saying it’s a slightly higher-priced way to advertise than on other methods, but when done correctly, the advertiser can amortize his efforts over time to make them ultimately more rewarding than search ads or typical display ads.
There’s more to this debate, and there are other problems with Scoble’s criticisms, like the fact that he unnecessarily picks on Chris Pirillo throughout the whole post. I briefly chatted with Chris this afternoon, and though Robert alleges in his post that Chris doesn’t always disclose, I confirmed with Chris that he does, in-fact, disclose tweets that are sponsored and those that aren’t.
Incidentally, as Mark Suster pointed out earlier today, we all do in-stream advertising to some extent or another, though most of us usually are guilty of advertising ourselves (do you post links to your blog posts or your YouTube videos? Are those tweets strictly conversation, or is there a promotional element to them?).
The fact is, and this is true of almost all forms of online advertising, most independent content producers don’t have the momentum to pull down ads and sponsors like Scoble does. That’s why ad networks are necessary and how Google continues to exist (they make a LOT of money by being an ad network).
Certainly it undersells my capabilities as an influencer to sell my tweets for between $3-$50 a pop (which is what I get for mine). That said, until someone signs up to be my sole sponsor at a premium rate, that’s what they ala carte out to for me and a large majority of professional and independent content producers, and it continues to be the lowest-impact highest-return area of my content production efforts.
That means it’s only going to grow as an industry, because I’m not alone.
What do you think about Robert's take on the frequency of sponsored tweets, and the necessity to identify sponsored tweets or ad tweets from the rest of your stream? What guidelines do you use, and do you think that there are certain practices which sponsored tweeps should adhere to?
Everyone has to find a balance - just like everyone has to find a balance of ads on their site. Too much WILL drive everyone away, but in Pirillo's case where he brands much of them as "coupons," you can find an audience for the ads as well, and they become a value add (just the same way many mommy bloggers have "deal blogs.").
That part isn't completely off base, IMO, but the way he framed it made it sound like all twitterers with in-stream ads are going to drive their followers away - which isn't the case.
I disclaim most of my posts with the tag #spnsr, with the exception of the ones that come from TwittAds, which are disclaimed with the link: http://spon.in/xxxx. I think hashtag disclosure is good in most cases where it's not obvious you have a major sponsor like Robert has in Rackspace.
In his case, the sponsorship is so pervasive that disclosure is redundant.
I think Scoble is making a mountain out of a mole hill in this case. I really don't see what the big deal is. For Chris Pirillo, Sponsored tweets are disclosed as such, and any in-stream advertising is pretty obvious and can almost always benefit the viewer (I have discovered so many new products from him). Also there is thing a lot of people seem to forget: you can unfollow and not watch - so what's the big deal?
Points well made. I personally have never taken an issue with in-stream ads, nor the twitterers who send them. I think that full disclosure is definitely necessary though, and I appreciate that Robert mad it a point in his blog post to show how strongly he feels that your followers must know the difference between your personal opinions and the tweets you send as promotions. Editorial integrity can easily get lost in a communication platform like twitter, where fragmented bits of conversation travel far and one individual can reach millions on a whim.
I think that the way he brought Pirillo into the situation was just a bit short of classy, and maybe too direct of an attack (would it be too harsh to call it that?) on his ethics as a twitter user. Chris, I think your tweets are very interesting (often hilarious) and well rounded. I follow you just as eagerly as I follow Robert or Mark. =]
I was also considering that Robert's extreme distaste for in-tweet advertising and sponsorship can possibly be attributed to his love for the concept of the "SuperTweet". I don't necessarily sway in any direction on the matter, but I think he definitely has his eyes set on a particular method of monetization for every individual and company involved with the platform. I think that maybe the best route isn't one single method, and not a sole system devised by Evan, Biz, and Co., but maybe a combination of several systems, networks, and ideas. In tweet ads might be an essential part of that ecosystem, just as the proposed "SuperTweet" will likely be.
IMO =]
Nice overview. People tend to react emotionally to discussions that (in the end) are often just one opinion vs. another & don't always take the time to consider that each side of the coin has its merits.
I found this particularly interesting coming from Scoble because I seem to remember that he created some controversy by sending kindle-related tweets which included an (undisclosed) Amazon-affiliate link not that long ago. It's unfortunate he's not as forgiving with Chris Pirilo as others have been with him.
I completely agree faryl- what I have always loved about the tech and social media industries is that everyone involved- including the developers, user base, and journalists- usually has a pretty respectful and liberal way of approaching arguments and confrontations. I would like to think that I associate myself with, and only follow the editorial content of the most intelligent and somewhat reasonable folks on the web (not the trolls and flame war spurring idiots that roam most forums and discussion boards).
I guess what I'm saying is, aren't we all supposed to be friends? And couldn't Robert have use a less specific example to illustrate his point, rather than doing the equivalent of throwing Pirillo under the bus?
Again, I have nothing but respect for everyone here. Just asking some questions. =]
I do too - the days of seething disagreement between Scoble and I are long past (I think - I only speak for myself
). When I hung out with Robert at SxSW last year, I found I just couldn't stay mad at the guy for very long (despite some very heated disagreements when I was back at Mashable).
Still, Scoble and I have many of the same wheelhouses, so that's part of the reason why he and I are at philosophical odds fairly often. Most of what Scoble said in his post was OK in my book, I just had to take issue with the four main points listed above.
That's the best thing about all of this, the fact that there is a fairly consistent amount of respect in all of this, but that we aren't necessarily going to leave any subject untouched, any leaf unturned. =]
I would still love to her the Scobleizer's response to all of this, and if his slight obsession with the SuperTweet concept isn't driving some of his nerd/moralist rage against these advertisers. =P
BTW, Thanks for the great post Rizzn.
Thanks for writing this post. Actually, between your post and Robert's I feel like I can get a good handle on the sponsoring/ads situation.
[...] In-Stream Twitter Ads: You’re Already Doing Them [Yes, You]November 23, 2009 [...]
[...] In-Stream Twitter Ads: You’re Already Doing Them [Yes, You] – Mark “Rizzn” [...]
Ah, the "every link is a paid link" moral relativism argument. Mark says "I’ve had a grand total of about five people unfollow me personally because of ads I’ve run in my tweets" but doesn’t take into account the people (like me) that choose not to start following him because of in-tweet ads.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
So are you going to unfollow Robert? He is sponsored by Rackspace, and frequently puts out Rackspace-promoting content in his tweets. Should I unfollow you? You’re paid by Google, and often put out Google related materials that you wouldn’t normally propagate if you weren’t on staff there.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Mark, I actually unfollowed Robert a few weeks ago as part of a 30 day trial because he kept talking about Twitter lists, which I find dry as dust. You’re welcome to think everyone is doing in-stream Twitter ads by your definition of ads; I just disagree with you.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Mark, you’re welcome to think everyone is doing in-stream Twitter ads by your definition of "ads"; I just disagree with you.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
I think it will be relatively easy to spot the shill ads from individuals that are posting information about/from their employers or about products they are truly enthused about. People aren’t stupid.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
@Matt – let’s go with *your* definition of ad, or rather, your employer’s definition of ad….. http://screencast.com/t/YmI4OWZhNjkt – by that definition, your latest tweet is an ad.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
My tweet about email spammer Alan Ralsky being sentenced to jail is an ad? I’m not following you, sorry. My point in commenting was that you don’t really know how many people choose not to follow you because of tweets like "Follow @BlueToolCrew & you could win a Craftsman Autohammer. Your thumbs will thank you! http://spon.in/06/D8" I suppose the claim is that’s disclosure because the redirector has "spon" in it? I think that sort or tweet has a more corrosive effect on your followers than you might expect.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Agree with Matt Cutts. I think irrelevant ads that distract and are not useful to the audience do have a corrosive effect on your followers. The best example I have of ads done tastefully is Google AdWords that promotes relevant ads above organic search results. In many cases the ad is better than the search result even. However Matt, what would be your opposition to an ad that is as relevant to any other tweet from someone you are following.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
@Matt: the latest tweet at the time when I wrote that was one about Google Chrome Extensions, Matt. http://screencast.com/t/ZjdkNDY1M That’s an announcement post for your employer, purely promotional with a little bit of endorsement on the side.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
For that matter, I’m not the one who’s against ads. If you want to promote who you work for and who pays for your meals, I’m all about that. You’re the one who says that’s a bad thing. With regard to my sponsored tweets coming from the Craftsman campaign, there are about three types of conspicuous disclosure involved – there’s a tool bar that shows up on the link, there’s disclosure on my Twitter page background, and there’s http://spon.in/xxx on all the tweets in that campaign. In terms of corrosive effect, why is engagement with my followers always high, clickthroughs always high, and comments on my blog posts always high? Why is my follower count graph up and to the right? If that’s corrosion, then what’s growth and engagement look like?
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
..
For that matter, I’m not the one who’s against ads. If you want to promote who you work for and who pays for your meals, I’m all about that. You’re the one who says that’s a bad thing.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
I’m on Mark’s side, but I think you’re all doing it right. (I think Mark’s saying the same thing though) Follow your stats. In the end it’s the numbers that count.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
I do think it’s a little odd that a Google employee is going by assumption though. I’m curious where Matt’s stats are to prove his point.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Agree with @Jesse Follow the stats
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Which is why I unfollowed those jackasses
. Anyone who I felt was marketing was unfollowed.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Richard, which is fine – from what these guys are saying you’re in the minority. (although calling them a jackass for it is a bit over-the-top I think – let them use it the way they like!)
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Every link you tweet, to your own content or anyone else’s, is an ad. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Whether they are paid ads or not, depends. I’d like to think most are unpaid. I will admit to tweeting things and posting stuff here on friendfeed where I got some sort of compensation for doing it (though not always money), but I won’t admit to doing it for anything I didn’t feel good about and wouldn’t have done for free, any way. It would probably be quite difficult for anyone to pick out most of the paid ones I have done.
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Every link you tweet, to your own content or anyone else’s, is an ad. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Whether they are paid ads or not, depends. I’d like to think most are unpaid. I will admit to tweeting things and posting stuff here on friendfeed where I got some sort of compensation for doing it (though not always money), but I won’t admit to doing it for anything I didn’t feel good about and wouldn’t have done for free, any way. It would probably be quite difficult for anyone to pick out most of the paid ones I have done. (unfollow me if you want, but before you do, I ask you to correctly identify 3 paid shares, first)
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
...
This reminds me of early discussions with google founder in 1999 around paid inclusion (prior to adwords) – the number one issue being discussed here is about user experience – period. Expectations are different for different people Matt Cutts will always disagree with Mark Hopkins until there is a norm on what is a sponsored tweet. Do I stop using gmail because lame ass ads show up there or stop using google search because adwords are on the side – No I don’t. In fact those paid links are valuable to me when in coontext same here
This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed
Thanks for the link to my blog. I appreciate it and am glad you found it worthwhile.
This comment was originally posted on Fredzimny's Blog