We Waited All this Time for...uh...Promoted Tweets?

So...in-stream advertising. That is the answer on how Twitter will make money. I gotta admit that I am pretty underwhelmed with this idea. While the number 1 question about Twitter has long been "when will Twitter make money?"...the # 2 question has to have been "how will Twitter make money?" 

And now we know the answer. Basically, Twitter will partner with corporations to stick "promoted tweets" at the top of Twitter searches. In effect, this will mean that a search will be "user-generated" content, but instead, pre-determined, paid-for content provided by big corporations. Not exactly rocket science if you ask me.

So...will the model work? Well, if Twitter gets paid and corporations are happy...probably so. After all, Tweets are by-definition self-promotion anyway...so how different is corporate promotion? Maybe we don't like the idea, but it isn't like Twitter has been pure and clean. Heck, I myself wrote recently about the "sponsored tweets" business with recent posts on leading Twitter advertisers like Be-A-Magpie and Sponsored Tweets.

That being said, do I think twitter could have done better? Well, yea. It isn't like search advertising hasn't been perfected by the likes of Google already. As Newsweek stated earlier this week in their aptly titled post "Is Twitter Trying to Be Unimaginative at Making Money?", it is not like this hasn't been done before. To quote Newseek:

Yesterday Twitter unveiled its fascinating and nontraditional business plan, and it is … drumroll please … search advertising. Upon this announcement, a heavy sigh emanated from the Internet. In Silicon Valley, where tradition falls under the boot heels of revolutionaries every five years or so, it’s hard to think of something more traditional than search advertising, which Google perfected nearly a decade ago.

So what does this all mean for Twitter? Maybe nothing...maybe everything. While it is clear that Twitter needs to find a way to make money, it does strike me as uninspired that Twitter has gone down this path. After all, for a "revolutionary" system like Twitter it seems like a revolutionary model is needed. Do you agree?

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)

Seven Reasons Why Google Should Stay in China

 vs. 

There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding Google and its future strategies in China. The genesis for this debate was the recent admission by Google that its systems were recently hacked in an attempt to gain access to the gmail accounts of certain Chinese human rights activists and the possible theft of intellectual property. In response, Google has stated that they will no longer censor their Google.cn website. For those that are unaware, Google.cn is the local Chinese-language site of Google and is generally regarded as the second most popular search site in China behind Baidu.

While I appreciate the moral debate associated with Google's actions, I disagree with their decision to possibly leave China or change their policies regarding search censorship. I do not make this decision lightly, and I certainly understand why many will disagree, but I also firmly believe that Google's decision is short-sighted (at best) and possibly counter-productive (at worst).  

I have outlined below the seven reasons (in no particular order) why I believe that Google should stay in China below. As always, I appreciate my readers opinions and comments.


Seven Reasons Why Google should stay in China

# 1: "Don't Be Evil" is Not A Business Model (aka Your Shareholders Have Expectations Too): Last I checked, Google was a publicly traded, for-profit, shareholder owned corporation. While Google makes great products, and is generally beloved by its users, and has become an inconic brand, Google's purpose in life is to make money for its shareholders...not spread goodness and cheer around the world. Leaving what will soon be the world's largest Internet-user market because of a new-found sense of morality is not a reason for such a radical shift to business strategy. If I was a share holder, I would be asking big questions as to why such a well-known policy matter (search censorship in China) suddenly over road a major international business plan.

#2: Google Knew the Rules When They First Went to China: Nothing has changed since Google first entered China in 2006. For a world-wide phenomenon, I find it hard to believe that Google thought that the Chinese would treat them differently.  And if they did, that is perhaps the most naive thing I have ever heard.

For that matter Google, please stop couching the implementation of bad security policies and practices in your China operations as the excuse that is "driving" you out of China. Allowing penetration of your systems is a failure of security. The fact that they were under attack should not have been a surprise. Seriously, did you think that the Chinese wouldn't try to spy on you and penetrate your systems? At least 20 other companies were also attacked as part of the same effort. 

In case you were wondering, if you Google "China spying on us" you get 1,870,000 hits.

# 3: Some Open Internet in China is Better than None: If Google wants to do some good in the world, providing even a partially censored Internet in China is a very good thing. The fact that the Internet in China is heavily fire walled and restricted is no surprise to anyone. The fact that China market-leader Baidu willingly restricts Internet search to remove terms such as Falun Gong is equally not surprising. That being said, the Internet is a big place and there are still millions of web pages that remain accessible to the average Chinese citizen only via Google. Even censored, Google.cn still provides a great service to the average citizens in China...and that fact alone says Google.cn should stay in operation. 

(Note: For more information on how the Internet in China is censored, check out this Wikipedia page.)

# 4: Google, You Made Your Point Already (In Fact, Maybe Too Much of One) The press around Google leaving China has certainly been global, but now it is time to ratchet it back. While the Western World gets the moral issues associated with this topic, further embarrassing the Chinese leadership on this topic is counter-productive. In fact, the implications of continuing to push the way you have may be more damaging in the long run to a broad swath of companies and industries that want to operate in China.

Now is the time to back off a little bit and come to a resolution that makes sense for both parties. In fact, you might even be able to get some agreement with the government that allows for you to maintain your Do-No-Evil position with the Chinese Government's interests.

#5: You Don't Get to Score if You Don't Play in the Game: Pardon the bad metaphor, but simply put, if Google is not in China, then Google doesn't get to discuss Chinese censorship and policies. We all know that Google is a very influential player in the Internet (in addition to search, advertising, etc.), but that influence is based on participation and market share. One thing that is very true about operating in China is that public officials are sensitive to world opinion and the "face" that China portrays to its neighbors, friends, enemies, and competitors. 

Why cede the position of influence from the largest Internet market in the world? Sure, if Google leaves they will be applauded for their moral position by various members of the blogosphere, but they will also instantly become a non-player regarding Internet policy matters in this part of the world.  Doubt me? How influential is Yahoo on this matter? Not a whole lot given that they left China years ago.

# 6: Where Does it End?: Let's be honest...every nation on Earth has its own interest, policies, and approaches to the Internet and accessibility. While nations like North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are particularly restrictive, even here in the US, our government has acted to restrict Internet access, content, etc. If Google leaves China for a difference in moral opinion, why should it stay in so many other nations? In fact, if I am a country that has a restrictive Internet policy, I now know how to push Google around. Simply require them to restrict a few search items and then dare them to complain. What kind of items? Could be anything? And if Google doesn't like it, they can leave.

# 7: Search is Not, and Never Has Been, A Moral Issue: Google, stop wrapping the issue of search into terms usually associated with conflicts between Good vs. Evil. Search is a tool, only as good as the algorithm that supports it and the results that it provides. We all live most our lives quite well without using search to make our decisions. I don't need Google to know right from wrong, much less to know that it is wrong to steal. Associating the Chinese Government's restrictions on search at the same level as the challenges of living under an autocratic regime is ludicrous. 


And besides, what is the difference between not making a search result available (as in China) vs. only making a result available on page 300 of the search results? What's the difference among having a company pay for a search result to appear high on a list vs. never showing it at all? For that matter, who decides what exactly is click-fraud? Or even how does the Google search algorithm work and how does it prioritize results? I know there is a lot of grey in these questions, but there is no such thing as search purity and philosophically, I doubt the Chinese see much of a difference.

In China, we call manipulating search results to be censorship. In the US, we call it advertising. The fact it is, both are manipulations of a given set of data to serve a specific purpose.  Search, of all things, is not an either / or issue, so why are we trying to make search to be such a thing?  

Full Disclosure Statement: This blog was originally written on Google Docs and has been posted using a Google-owned Blogging tool that contains Google-supplied Ads.

Learnings in Twitter Advertising: Sponsored Tweets

This is part one 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.

SPONSORED TWEETS: GREAT SITE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE LOTS OF FOLLOWERS

The Basics:
1) Requires that your account be at least 60 days old, have a minimum of 100 followers, and at least 100 Twitter updates.
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) Uses a combination of different metrics from Klout, Twittergrader.com, etc. to measure the "quality" of your Twitter account.

The Pros:
1) It works. In short, yes, you will get paid for tweeting someone else's ads. Given the level of effort that entails, this is almost free money.
2) Account settings are simple to establish and update...including keywords and category.
3) Website does a nice job sharing stats (e.g. clicks) which gives you a good sense of how successful your tweets are.
4) Full control over price per tweet. Sponsored Tweets does recommend a price per tweet (roughly correlated to $1 / 1000 followers you have), but in reality, you can set any number you want. Of course, Advertisers still have to accept your price.
5) You almost always write the actual tweet. The advertiser always provides instructions (e.g. links, words, requirements), but you can put the actual tweet in your own words. This is a great advantage if you are trying to ensure the sponsored Tweets are consistent with your other tweets. Of course, you still only have 140 characters to work with.

The Cons:
1) No option to opt-into adds because Advertisers only solicit you directly. It sometimes feels like you are waiting for one of the cool kids to pick you for kick-ball.
2) Related to #1, it can be a long time between paid tweets. Best to keep in mind, that this is free money...not instant money.
3) Advertisers seem to favor accounts with very large followings. Twitter accounts with small followings may get few opportunities.
4) Very difficult (if not impossible) to become a celebrity or recommended account by Sponsored Tweets. You can try, but don't expect it.
5) Sponsored Tweets doubles your per-tweet price for Advertisers. Said another way, whatever price you set the advertiser will pays 2x.

The Verdict:
Join Sponsored Tweets. 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, Sponsored Tweets is worth your time. As noted though, you need to really grow your followers to make money.

To sign-up, you can click HERE or on the Sponsored Tweets panel at the bottom of this blog.

Google Plays the Ad Game: The Most Remarkable Thing About the Launch of the Nexus One is not the Phone

An earth-shattering thing occurred this week with Google...and it wasn't just the launch of their mobile phone the Nexus One. Yes, that was interesting (more about that HERE), but it was the *way* in which Google brought this phone to market. While a lot of folks focused on the device's characteristics, or that it is unlocked, that is not what surprised me.

So...what did I think was remarkable? Well...

1) Google advertised the Nexus One on www.Google.com: While it sounds obvious to do this (after all, most companies do), this is a big change for Google. To-date, they have avoided selling any of their own products directly off of Google.com (e.g. Android, Adsense, Aps, etc.). Suddenly, the Nexus One appears on their home page directly promoting and enabling the sale of the device (And that doesn't even count what Google is doing as part of their own ad distribution network). That is not a minor change for the Googleplex.

2) Google is fulfilling the Nexus One directly: When was the last time you ever bought anything directly from Google and had it delivered to your home? Sure, you may have used Google to find something...and then bought from another vendor's site, but Google directly? And on those occasions where you paid Google (e.g. Google Aps), it isn't like something arrived in your mailbox. It is pretty remarkable that Google has built an infrastructure to deliver products. It will be interesting to see how good they are at this (and in fact, there are already complaints. See HERE).

3) Google is now competing against some of its best partners: For better or worse, Google has been very careful to avoid competing against its biggest mobile partners. To-date, they have stuck to selling Android as an operating system and striking search deals on mobile phones and websites. Sprint, Verizon and others sell a huge amount of Android-based cell phones which Google gets a share of. Now, they are basically introducing an entire line of products (e.g. it won't stop with the Nexus One) that could take share from their best friends.

So what is the impact of this change for the future? Well, time will tell. But among the questions I want to see answered are:

1) What is the future of Android? It used to be just about software on a mobile phone. Is that still the case? Or will Google build a whole line of its own devices that compete against the Android operating system.

2) What is the future of partnerships with mobile carriers like Verizon and Sprint? These two carriers represent fully 50% of the mobile phone business in the US. For the short term, I am sure nothing will change, but neither will look kindly on Google if they start to lose share to a directly sold Google phone.

3) Is Google about to "Yahoo" their website? One of the keys to Google's success has been their carefully constructed persona and strategy. Among that has been the simplicity of their website and the perception that they are not playing favorites (perception...because, of course they do play favorites). Will that still be the case?

4) Will they still be proponents of Net Neutrality? Google has been one of the biggest proponents of the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality legislation. Publicly, this is because they profess support for an "open" Internet...but like any large, for-profit company, also because the proposed legislation benefits them. It will be interesting to see if this proposal still holds. After all, now that they are in the hardware business, things are different. For instance, can someone use the Nexus One and make Bing (from Microsoft) the default search tool? What about other applications? Time will tell.