Twitter May Have Found Its Business Model
readwriteweb.com
readwriteweb.com
Because what Twitter is, essentially, is a market researcher's goldmine. And access to real-time opinion. Why drop ads on people, when you can extract from them opinion that is probably more "valuable" than the small change from advertising?
Right now, they ask one question: "What are you doing?" Why not ask other questions? Rotate them, mix it up a little bit. They could even, for example, have a "word of the day" (or something) and ask people to tweet about that: in 140 characters or less, of course. Anything from a brand name to something like shoes. Re-package and sell that data to companies or competing companies. "This is what people are saying about ________ (you, your competition) today."
But that's just one idea; there's a lot of room to play with it. There's definitely a lot of untapped power/profit to be had in the collective.
Surely mining this collective intelligence provides invaluable market insight.
Searching for this "basic idea tag cloud" doesn't really seem to result in any previously dated articles/comments/tweets with these ideas written as such regarding how Twitter can be monetized and sustain. However, there have been quite a few after:
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=135016
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=134954
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/outside-voices-small-business/20...
I was simply finding it interesting that the ReadWriteWeb article's idea was monetizing Twitter by selling off friends . . . reminiscent of the whole "sacrificing facebook friends for a Whopper," thing awhile ago. But my ideas are better. :) 04 March 2009
How about this: Charge for API keys. There's already a crap-load of Twitter apps, and some of them are not free.
Alternatively, if the monetary value of the network is defined by the edges, rather than the nodes, and everyone is connected to everyone else, how do you determine the valuable connections from the meaningless ones? As the number of connections goes up, their individual value would seem to go down. Beyond that being basic economics, you're setting yourself up to be limited in the kinds of additional things you can do as the meaning behind the individual connections approaches zero.
If twitter added some metadata behind the ability to create connections, like allowing users to group their connections into buckets (initially preconfigured to encourage meaningful use) like "co-workers", "friends", etc and let you filter what you publish and what you subscribe to in different ways, it could work. But then they'd have created FriendFeed.
The article suggests that advertisers will just "have to remain interesting" but put in traditional terms that would be the equivalent of making a new commercial each time you needed one (rather than just replaying the same one like companies do now). I'm not sure many companies have that level of creativity available to them.
I can see coupons and viral ads doing well, as well as games and novelties like the BK Whopper Sacrifice doing well, but you're right about those being hard to pump out on a large scale
They should work on adding new features that businesses are looking for...and then create a separate level of accounts for businesses and charge a monthly fee for that.
As much as people here think advertising is boring, I think Twitter could actually have a great contextual ad business. As long as the ads are relevant. If someone Twitters about HD TVs, would they not be especially be engaged by an ad for TV's? What about people who tweet about flights seeing ads from airlines? There is a lot of potential there.
I've been debating doing it for http://twitter.com/tipjoy
$1/new follower? Too high? Lame?
Getting individuals to hand over a buck for 'good' followings ruins the whole point of twitter and I can't see people doing it.
Bring back display advertising.