Learnings in Twitter Advertising: Be-A-Magpie

This is part two of a series exploring the use of Twitter as an advertising medium. In particular, I will focus on how individual Twitterers can become part of the advertising movement. Comments, ideas, suggestions, or corrections are all welcome.

Be-A-Magpie (BAM): 

The Basics:
1) No minimum requirement for followers or age of account.

2) Must have Paypal account (for payments)
2) Every post will include some type of notification that it is sponsored. Everything from "#Sponsored" to "#ad" can appear. This is a requirement of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
3) $50 minimum balance before you can withdraw money. About average for this kind of thing.
4) Can be paid for multiple different types of tweets: Pay-per-view, Pay-per-click, Pay-per-lead and Pay-per-sale. 

The Pros:
1) It works. In short, yes, you will get paid for tweeting someone else's ads. Almost free money.
2) Account settings are simple to establish and update.

3) Pay-per-tweets generally increases as your followers increase. Assume $1 per tweet per thousand followers.

4) Often receive a "series" of tweets from advertisers as part of a program. In other words, it is common to receive 3-5 tweets from the same advertiser spread out over time.

5) Can set frequency of tweets (from 1:5 to 1:100) as well as, pre-approval / no-approval necessary.
6) Easy to set account to approve / delete or edit actual tweet. The advertiser always provides initial wording, but you can put the actual tweet in your own words. This is a great advantage if you are trying to ensure the tweets are consistent with your other tweets. Of course, you still only have 140 characters to work with.

7) Customer care organization is very responsive.

8) Advertisers do not seem to favor accounts with very large followings. Twitter accounts with small followings get opportunities too.

The Cons:
1) No option to opt-into ads. Only Be-A-Magpie knows why you are selected or not selected. As with Sponsored Tweets, it sometimes feels like you are waiting for one of the cool kids to pick you for kick-ball.

2) No ability to set keywords or category. In theory, you will only get ads related to what you are tweeting about. That process is a bit of a mystery however.

3) BAM does not share state (e.g. clicks) related to tweets. You have no idea how successful or unsuccessful your tweets are.
4) No control over price per tweet. All pricing is done by BAM / Advertisers.
5) It can be a long time between paid tweets. Best to keep in mind, that this is free money...not instant money.6) BAM Will suspend any account found to be using a "Twitter adder" (aka tweettrain, etc.). Be careful on this one.

The Verdict: 
Join Be-A-Magpie. I do wish I could get a little bit more information regarding my account through BAM, but on the whole, they treat you fairly and professionally. It may take you a while to grow your account to $50, but given the level of effort, opportunity to present your account effectively, and the results, BAM is worth your time.

To sign-up, you can click HERE.

Why Google Wants to be Your Home Broadband ISP

Based on the recent announcements coming out of Mountain View, one might think that the folks at Google are in a race with Proctor and Gamble to launch new products. In one six-month period, Google has entered more new markets than it probably has entered in the last 5 years. First it was being a mobile provider (Nexus One), then becoming a TV advertiser (Google.com / Super Bowl Ads), then their entry into Social Media (Google Buzz), and now, they want to be an Internet Service Provider (ISP).

So what does this latest announcement mean? Well, there is certainly an element of publicity, but I do think they are making these moves to try and ensure a stake in the larger question of where the Internet is going and (hopefully for them), drive other carriers to improve their infrastructure / speeds. Given whom they are partnering with, and the relatively small number of potential end-users, they will not make a big dent in this space…at least on a nationwide basis (For comparison, Comcast alone has ~13M broadband subscribers), but that isn't why Google is making this move. In fact, I would postulate that they can disproprotionately influence the market simply by showing what is possible (1G speed! HD Video! Etc.) and use those successes in public discussions around Net Neutrality, etc. In this way, they hope to improve the US Internet as a whole…and by extension, the services that they can provide to Google-users everywhere.

So what are the top 5 reasons for Google becomming an ISP? Here are mine.

1) Google has lots of money, so why not experiment: This effort may costs billions, and will likely be heavily subsidized, but it won't be free (Google defines it as "competitively priced") and even so, Google has the money to burn. In fact, one of the truisms of technology is that there is only so much that can be done in a lab. Now, if that "lab" has 50,000 - 500,000 users, actively using the Internet / applications / technologies, well, you can certainly learn a lot. To a certain extent, you will only create a Disney World-like environment, but that is certainly a valuable way to learn.

2) Google doesn't want to be your ISP, they want your ISP to be better: As PCWorld correctly stated, the goal of Google is not to become the underlying broadband provider for the US, but to show what is possible from an Internet delivery standpoint.  The fact is, even if they had 500,000 customers (high end) for this experiment, they would barely be in the Top 10 of ISPs in the US. So...what is their goal? Well, I believe a main driver for this activity is that they want to "show" the world (and the FCC) how backwards the US broadband market it and try and drive its improvement. And if they succeed, Google is betting that any improvement to the Internet (especially in speed and quality) will ultimately benefit them by allowing for more and better uses of the Internet (that Google believes it will lead).

3) Don't be Evil is just a Guideline, not a rule (at least when it comes to making money): Back in September 2009, a small but very important change occurred in Google's traditional DbE rule. Specifically, on the corporate web site, Larry Page posted a document entitled Ten things we know to be true that outlined Google's official philosophy on a number of core assumptions and ideas. Most were the same as we know, but # 6 was the most interesting. Specifically, it stated "You can make money without doing evil" and then went on to outline how (shock!) Google, is a business...and like any business is out there to make money. Google Broadband (and the Nexus One, and Google Buzz, etc.) are examples of that.

4) Influence the Net Neutrality debate: Google has been one of the strongest proponents of Net Neutrality, but time will tell how successful they are on this issue. Fact is, Net Neutrality is has a lot of detractors...and those detractors are among the largest companies in the US. At best, Google may get only some broad principles approved and not real change. One way to change that trajectory? Become an ISP and show the FCC how other ISPs are BS-ing the establishment. After all, if Google can show it is possible to consistently deliver 1 Gbps of capacity to the home...why can't Comcast offer 50 Mbps? Or 100 Mbps?

5) Learn what it means to have actual customers: I don't mean to say this lightly, but Google's greatest weakness is that they don't have many customers of their own. Sure, they have millions and millions of users (me being one of them), but they don't really have many that fit the legal definition of a customer (that is: "some one who pays for goods or services"). In fact, the only real customers they have are those that pay for Google Aps or Advertisers who use AdWords to push ads to folks like you or me. In theory, this means that at any point, an individual could stop using Google and only Google would suffer. One of the great learnings that could come out of this exercise is how to directly engage with their customers, provide good customer service, and also, generate new services that are then available elsewhere. To-date, they have not done well here (see: One, Nexus)

Has Google Lost its Mojo? Google Buzz is Another Misstep by Google

The last few months have been very strange for Google. For an organization that has been admired by many for their success in execution and product development, they seemed to have well, slipped a bit. Sure, they have continued to be embarrassingly profitable, and if anything, their advertising business has been growing and growing, but what about the rest of their business? Well, those efforts have not been nearly as successful.

In fact, if it was any other company that had made these misteps, the blogosphere would be all over them (not to mention, Wall Street). So what have those misteps been? Well, first there was the launch of Google Wave: (which sure sounded cool, but alas was not), then the very blah launch of the Nexus One, and then the whole "China is spying on me" episode, followed by the realization that in wireless, customer care is critical and now, we have the announcement of Google Buzz.

What is Google Buzz? Well, according to Google, it is what social media is supposed to be...at least from Google's perspective. What does it do? Well, some neat things like sharing photos with friends, interfacing with Twitter, etc., but I gotta admit, I don't see this as particularly earth-shattering. Still, you can decide for yourself by watching the video below.

So, what is going on? I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems like Google has well, forgotten what made them Google. In fact, even their competitors seem to sense that based on the latest responses to Google Buzz. For me, as an outsider, it is hard to say why this is the case, but my two cents is that Google is falling prey to two mistakes. 

The first, is the classic big-company problem of thinking they are smarter than everyone else. Don't get me wrong, Google is very smart (and has lots and lots of smart employees), but that doesn't mean they are infallible. More importantly, for these new lines of business, the details really matter and just being smarter than everyone else doesn't mean you have a good product.

Second, I think there is a real challenge among the vision of the Google leadership team. Schmidt, Brin and Page are deservingly gods in the search and ad space, but they have limited / no experience in wireless, customer care (until today, anyone ever tried to call Google?) and even collaboration / social media. Already, a lot of writers are declaring that Buzz is "boring"...and worse, out-of-touch with what customers want.  Personally, I agree. And in fact, I am much more excited about the recent update in Google Aps that allows you to share files!

So are the wheels falling off in the Googleplex? Of course not...but they still need to stop and rethink some of these recent efforts and new business areas. In business, past success does not beget future success and the recent track record has been pretty ugly.

Why Handwriting Is Dying...which is both a good and bad thing bad thing.

In an outstanding essay last week, Anne Trubek explored how the art of handwriting may have died...but that it is not going away anytime soon...nor is it a bad thing. While historically, hand-writing has been associated with intelligence, education, and position in society (aka the "good hand"), today, that is no longer the case. None the less, as she notes in her essay, "handwriting is not going away anytime soon, but it is going" and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

On this topic, I am truly torn. For starters, I truly value the speed, efficiency and capabilities that modern technology has brought to communication. Everyday, I use a cellphone, internet, instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook, email (about five accounts), and of course, this blog. Unquestionably, these mediums have allowed me to do more and communicate better and more efficiently than ever before. Yes, I occasionally also send a letter or two...but that is usually because the person I am communicating with doesn't use one of the above options (call this the Grandma rule). In fact, Ms. Trubek rightfully notes that it is speed, and to a certain extent democratization that these new mediums have given us and we should not forsake the benefits of these technologies for some nostalgic view of handwriting.

On the other hand, I do agree that the loss of good handwriting is a bit sad. For starters, we still write things all-of-the-time in our daily lives. One example, some of my notes when preparing for this blog. Additionally, there is still something to be said about sending a hand-written note for correspondence, etc. For me personally, I view my lack of skilled handwriting as embarrassing. Sure, I still manage on a daily basis, but I do regret never learning to properly write in cursive and instead, reverting to a lazy (and barely legible) print every time I need to write something down.

Frankly, I do have a bit of jealousy for those people that write well and ummm...attractively. The irony all of this is that the reason I never learned to write well was that during that class in Elementary school, when every one else was learning proper penmanship, I was pulled out for a "gifted and talented" class. Yep...at my elementary school, if you were GT, you basically were not taught how to write.

In my opinion, the real challenge to the brain of the youth today is not handwriting vs. technology...but how the advent of the spell checker eliminated the need to know how to spell. Maybe that is the reason why we have all embraced technology. After all, no one has invented the spell checker for handwriting. Perhaps a topic for another day.

LINK: Miller-McCune: Handwriting is History

Tax Advice: How to get the best tax benefit when deciding to sell or donate a car

Well, it is tax time again, and if you are like me, you are busily trying to figure out the best way to pay your taxes. Best, of course, means not only paying what you owe, but also making sure you have made the right deductions for the previous year.  Ensuring you handle your deductions correctly can mean all sorts of things, but one of the best ways to make sure you have the right balance is to make a charitable donation. And one of the best charitable donations is donate a used car to a charitable organization.

Unfortunately, recent changes in tax law have made donating a car a much more complicated process. Whereas you used to be able to get the full "blue book" value, today, that is only the case in certain situations. In fact, for most donations, you are most likely to receive only a few hundred dollars in credit vs. the thousands you received years ago. With this is mind, sometimes it is better to simply sell the car.

This helpful guide should assist you in making some of those decisions. Of course, you should always speak to a tax advisor for "real" advice...

How to get the best benefit Between Selling and Donating a Car (tax vs. cash)

The iPad Cameth. And...I Am Not Sure It Mattered

Last week was another big Apple moment. In classic Apple fashion, Steve Jobs announced the launch of the iPad. Over the course of 90 minutes (though only once some of the giggling stopped (insert feminine hygiene joke here), the audience was given the traditional Jobs-show on how this new tablet-based PC would create an entirely new market segment....which of course, Apple would dominate.

So what does the bloggerati think about the iPad? Well, there seems to be a split decision regarding whether or not the iPad is the "magical" device that Steve Jobs described, or something neat, but not nearly that interesting. Some, such as Slate, love the device, covet it, and want it. Where as others media outlets such as PC World, Wired, CNN, and CNET express disappointment and raise lots of questions regarding the iPad, its positioning, and even the existence of the market for which it is targeted. In fact, even Gizmodo, one of the biggest "Apple polishers" that exists, expresses some reservations regarding the iPad.

What do I think? Well, frankly, I side with the disappointed crowd. As I first wrote a few weeks ago, in order for the iPad (I called it the iSlate then) to be a success, Apple needed to create something remarkable. In order to create something remarkable, Apple would also be required to do some very un-Apple things. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Apple took that "advice" and so I am left wondering how the iPad will fit among the crowd of gadgets that we all can choose from today. 

It is not that the iPad isn't interesting. And admittedly, they did get a lot right (For instance, Apple did decide to rely on the iPhone OS for this device and they also priced the basic version of the iPad under $500 (just barely)), but there is a lot missing from the iPad too. In fairness, the iPad does have some unexpectedly cool things too (such as its ability to play games and watch TV), but I am not sure that those things are enough. 

Certainly one could argue that this is just the first version of an entirely new class of devices, but given Apple's stated interest to entirely redefine the market place for computers, this was not the time to be shy.  In fact, I see a lot of real misses in the iPad 1.0 such as:

1) No Flash: This is a huge issue. 99% of what makes the Internet go around is flash dependent. For a device that is supposed to be basically a computer, not having flash is a major bust.

2) No USB: Again, a huge gap. Why? Well, the iPad may be a great device to access the Internet or App store or viewing pictures, but it sure makes it hard to add things to the Internet (e.g. upload photos from your digital camera). This is one example where I think Apple took the "big iPod" theme too far.

3) AT&T: I am really not an AT&T hater, but it stuns me that they would continue down this path with a new device line up. Perhaps their contract with AT&T required it, or perhaps AT&T made it really worth their while, but fact is, this was the change to break lose and drive users in another direction. I wasn't in the room when this fact was announced, but apparently, there was an audible sigh of disappointment when it was announced. I don't blame them.

4) No Camera / Video Conferencing support: So...this is supposed to be the computer of the future but it doesn't take pictures? Or support video conferencing? Huh? This alone would be a major reason to keep me from moving to the iPad.

5) Closed Application Environment: I love the App store. Its awesome. But I also like the option of using other applications. The iPad doesn't do that. When you buy an iPad you basically become part of the giant Apple environment. Fine if that is all you want to do. Ugly, if you want to do something else.

6) Pricing: $499 is a good starting price, but practically speaking, that doesn't give you much. If the goal of the iPad is to displace Netbooks as a choice, it is already on shaky ground at $499...and way out of market at $829 (64Gig and 3G wireless). If they wanted an entry-level model, they needed to do better on that one.

7) No GPS (if you don't buy 3G):  Maps and presence are the new "killer app," but their relevance is directly related to how they interface with GPS. Yes, you can get that with a 3G card embedded, but honestly, paying that much more ($139) for just a 3G card seems ludicrous.

8) Strategy / Positioning: Jobs made a point of positioning the iPad as a cross between the iPhone and a Mac book. I don't think that makes sense. The iPad is really a cross-between an Amazon Kindle and a Sony PS2. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but lets not try and sell this device in the wrong place.

Time will tell if these issues are minor bumps in the road, functions of iPad 1.0, or major issues. Right now however, it seems to me that it is best to sit out this version and wait for the next version of the iPad to come out.