When everyone’s a broadcaster, is everyone an advertiser?
28th January 10
Posted in social media
Now social media has made it possible for everyone to become a broadcaster, is it inevitable that everyone becomes an advertiser?
In the early weeks of 2010, there’s already been considerable debate (and indignation) around brands, businesses and even bands incentivising users for Tweets. Twincentivisng, if you like (and I must admit I can’t resist a pun).
Is everyone an advertiser? Image by Mike Cogh, Flickr, under a creative commons license
Should brands pay for tweets? Should twitterers take the cash or resist? Is there a sustainable paid for media model here or a fundamentally misguided reaction to the rise of social media? Is pay-per-tweet the end of the Twitterverse as we know it?
In many ways this is an inevitable response to a number of factors:
- The extraordinary rise and equally extraordinary media profile of Twitter
- The increased premium placed on peer to peer recommendations
- The collapse of on-line display advertising and the rise of SEO
- The socialisation of search
Any and all of these factors suggest a pressing need for brands to find a way to harness the power of social media and for media agencies to find a way to monetise it. Viewed from one perspective, the asymmetric nature of Twitter relationships make it particularly ripe for the adoption of a “broadcast” model. 1 in 5 tweets already mentions a brand so monetisation of these mentions seems, from that perspective, to make eminent sense.
So it’s inevitable that businesses will experiment with a range of commercial models in this space from pay-per-tweet to pay-per-click to promotional access for tweets. I don’t personally feel huge moral indignation (perhaps it’s the ad-girl in me..). Brands will experiment with these businesses. If we don’t experiment we won’t learn. Some initiatives will be more successful than others and the ones that have a measure of success will probably involve some combination of:
- Transparency: Are the brand and the user open about their commercial relationship? Disclosure policies are becoming an increasingly important aspect of the pay-per-tweet business
- Authenticity: Does it sound like the user is talking? Is it something they would say or a product they would endorse? (Quite a challenge with auto-tweets and a point in favour of those services allowing users to generate their own copy)
- Complicity: Does the brand feel like they understand the platform and its users? Does it feel like a tech-savvy brand talking to tech-savvy individuals? Early FourSquare drinks/dinner promotions for example tapped into users’ mania for checking in and racking up points and so, although fairly basic, felt like they “got” it. Playing with the currency of the Platform-the mayorship-also created that sense of complicity and playfulness. Likewise, the Pearl Jam tweet-for-download mechanic felt like a way of engaging and rewarding fans rather than anything more cynical.
Four Square promotions
Yet while I don’t feel outraged or betrayed, I do feel a little disappointed and a lot sceptical.
The ease with which we can identify influencers and super-users is a hugely welcome benefit of the social web. Once upon a time, identifying opinion formers was something of a dark art (usually involving lurking in hipster bars). Now there are any number of algorithms designed to map patterns of influence, identify lovers and loathers of brands and quantify their sway. If we’re feeling unloved, we can even quantify our own Twinfluence.
But if identifying the influencers has become a science, influencing and activating the influencers remains an art. There is a huge opportunity in marrying the skills of PR experts and cultural mavens with hardcore data analytics to deliver robust, strategic, quantifiable (and cool) peer to peer programmes. Yet pay-per-tweet feels like a fairly blunt instrument.
Treating users as media spaces to be bought and sold seems to me to impose an old world model on a very new medium-and as we are constantly reminded, the old model is broken. The age of interruption is over. Where it still scores is when we need serious scale (10s of millions of eyeballs), seriously quickly. But to impose an interruption model on Twitter seems to offer the worst of all possible worlds-interruption without scale.
So as business model, paid-for Tweets seems fraught with problems. But it does arise from a set of very genuine problems and opportunities. So what more exciting uses could we make of these opportunities?
Co-creation: If we want smart, engaged and opinionated people talking about what we’re up to, why not involve them early? We are Social’s “The Marmarati” work for Marmite is a great example of how bringing super-users into the development process pays dividends. Using a brand’s super users as its consultants, collaborators and Beta-testers drives genuine excitement and dialogue.
Social gaming: I’m pretty sure no money changed hands, but boy did Spymaster pop up in my Twitterfeed a lot at one point. Likewise FourSquare. Imagine if either one of these properties-or the juggernaut that is Farmville- had been branded. A surefire way to rise through the social search rankings in an organic and entertaining way.
Surprise and delight: Now we can identify who’s talking about our brands most and quantify their sentiment surely there is much greater opportunity for pro-active, real world customer service? Take the recent Eurostar PR traumas. Or any of the many airlines experiencing delays or cancellations in the poor weather. It’s relatively easy to spot the most vocal and influential users of social media and to see when they’re experiencing peak moments of frustration. So upgrade them. Give them free lounge access. Give them a cupcake (please). I guarantee they’ll tweet about it-we all love surprises.
The Marmarati campaign
Simple social sign up should become a no-brainer and of course, if we want to get people talking the fundamental imperative remains to do something interesting. But what else could we do with the data now at our disposal, with the ability to spot influencers, quantify sentiment and micro-target? Am I missing something and is pay-per-tweet the wave of the future? Or are there more interesting futures out there?
22 comments on “When everyone’s a broadcaster, is everyone an advertiser?”
or sign in using Facebook Connect
Enter your personal information to the left, or sign in with your Facebook account by clicking on the button below:
Patricia McDonald
[...] help but to send out a quick post after reading about ‘Twincentivising’ – personaly I think this is ‘wrong dot com’ - what are your [...]
You’re so right Patricia. Everyone today is a broadcaster and advertiser. When we re-tweet, blog, or pass along a comment, we are essentially acting as advocates for that brand, business, or person. When I re-tweet @BBH, I’m not only sharing in a point of view that I believe in or want my followers to know about, but in directly promoting BBH.
As far as your question regarding pay per tweets, I do agree this will eventually be a revenue steam for some, the same way it has for bloggers who are key influencers in a specific sector. But as those followers become aware that the opinion is being swayed, will there be a greater backlash against the sponsor of that tweet, and do more harm than good? As with anything, it will need to walk a fine line between being hard sell Vs. informational in terms of approach and messaging.
Your Marmarati example, was really spot on. Just a great way of working and collaborating with advocates of a brand, to learn, listen and inspire others to follow. It reminded me of the story in the book “Groundswell” and how Del Monte created an on line community to specifically engage 300 invited dog owners in discussion and dialogue regarding eating habits and desires for their pets. Resulting in a new dog snack brand that addressed this group’s input and feedback. As more brands understand the space and how to use it without pissing anyone off, it will continue to grow and be not only an added revenue stream, but a way to benchmark an idea or improve a relationship.
Great point, Mike. There is a real danger that using influencers in this way actually erodes their influence and is ultimately destructive. The Marmarati and Groundswell examples are interesting ways into what I think is a big emerging trend-the crossover of marketing and market research. Understanding what consumers want and need is going to become a stream of communication not simply a piece of research.
Great post, Patricia. I love the blog. Came across it a few weeks ago and I’ve really enjoyed your thoughts and insights. So, I thought I’d get involved…cause that’s what we do now days, right?
It’s so interesting to see what lengths brands are willing to go to in leveraging social media. Pay-per-tweet is definitely a page right out of the old-school model and consumers in this day and age will see right through it.
There’s no such thing as easy money, and there’s no such thing as an easy way (paying for participation) to leverage social media. It’s going to take work, time, and innovative thinking to engage your audience. I guess what I’m trying to say is that you’ve got to pay the price so see the reward.
I love your closing points regarding co-creation, gaming, and delight. If you want people to talk then let them get involved with what’s going on.
Thanks Danny-and yes, we love it when people get involved. Such a good point about the appeal of “easy money”-I think many businesses are under-estimating the investment (in time, transparency and service as much as in monau) the social web will demand.
Wow, my spelling has gone horribly astray-clearly I meant money not monau (?!)
This is a great post and a good subject to think about. If you buy into the definition of advertising as, ‘a form of communication intended to persuade its viewers, readers or listeners to take some action’ than everyone has the possibility to become an advertiser.
I don’t mind if Kim Kardashian charges $10,000 per Tweet but if I were somebody who followed her I would take that well known fact into account when she recommends some products over another. I’m reading Trust Agents right now and she would slide as somebody who I trusted for advice because she takes money for Tweets.
I like the idea of brands having a presence in social media. I like the idea of brands listening to the conversation happening around them, this makes me very happy as a trained account planner. I like the idea of brands providing gifts and value for their hardcore fans and advocates. I like the idea of extending a really great advertising character into social media and having that branded character interact with real people. These seem to be the purest forms of using social media as a ‘friend to the consumer’ and not as another promotional medium.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by BBHLabs: “When everyone’s a broadcaster, is everyone an advertiser?” New Labs post on the rise of pay-per-tweet http://bit.ly/coQCpc...
Thanks Griffin, absolutely agree that brands presence in social media should be more about offering valuable content rather than using social media as “another promotional mechanic”. The trust question I think is key here-the social web seems to me to be founded on trusting the recommendations of friends and peers over that of experts or even algorithims. To erode the trust we have in those peers and networks feels very destructive.
My view is that although pay-per-tweet (or any other form of paid social media advocacy) WILL become much more widespread. The fabric of social media, however, will assimilate this and will revert to trust as currency –therefore compromising the profitability of pay-per-tweet models (eventually).
Let’s hope.
NB: I’m a brand guy, so here’s one less person who will even try to do this xD
Hi Alejandro-tend to agree on the long term picture. I wonder if it depends on social media (or at least the big SM players) remaining free to use though? If we had to pay a joining fee/subscription 1. would the communities survive and 2. would we be more tolerant of/resigned to this kind of incentive?
When everyone’s a broadcaster, is everyone an advertiser? I guess so.
MERCEDES BENZ.US TRUST.MUSHA CAY.HARRY WINSTON CORPORATION.UBS.ASPEN SNOWMASS COMPANY.PINK AND SAPERSTEIN OB/GYN PC
Paid tweets are the telemarketing of our modern communications network. Yes, they could work in terms of response. They also pollute the network, make other marketing attempts less viable, and piss users off.
I write this as a director of a media planning shop that focuses on evaluating all forms of advertising. I think paying people to insert products into their thoughts — which is what most tweets and blogs are, opinions giving the mind of the user — is far different that buying ad space in a newspaper column. This goes beyond “advertorial” to really misleading the audience. Even if a paid post is “transparent,” the intent is still to deceive, and suggest the paid poster or tweeter likes something more than she really does.
I’m not too worried about this silliness, though. Networks tend to rebel against pollution (witness the death of telemarketing in the U.S. as the Do Not Call list covered most of the population). People or businesses in social media that become inauthentic by tricking their audiences may have short-term gains, but they will eventually be unfollowed and lose their audience.
Frankly, I suggest to any agency or brand that resorts to paid tweets or paid posts that they are showing a lack of intelligence. If you could find a way to make your product really relevant in online communities, you would not have to game the system.
Hi,
I ran a little #socialexperiment last week in which I offered £5 iTunes gift cards for the first 10 people who RT’d my tweet. I doubted people would do it, I also feared backlash. But, to my surprise it actually worked.
But I wouldn’t say pay-per-tweet is the smart way to use social.
What was really interesting was that 50% of winners chose to give their £5 to the Red Cross.
I believe there is an opportunity for brands to practise acts of ‘charitwy’ (cause-related-tweeting) in order to increase their twitter following, spread messages etc.
It is less grubby than paying people to tweet, it helps humanity and gives every one a nice feeling – what’s not to like?
Ben, I love the thought that “networks tend to rebel against pollution”. I was worried that the network itself could be threatened if the trust that binds it is damaged but on balance I think you’re right.
Nick, really interesting experiment. There’s certainly something in cause-related tweeting-it’s a quick and easy way for users to show support and causes/brands to drive name recognition. There’s also a transparency about it-the mechanics are usually very explicit.
Patricia, thanks. I’d love to quantify how people are rebelling against paid posts and paid tweets — hard to do. But I follow several thousand people on Twitter and almost never see a sponsored tweet, so I’m guessing the IZEA-type model is getting much traction there.
Chris Brogan (who ironically advocates sponsored posts) has a good formula in his book Trust Agents which basically says trust = (what you give)/(what you take). If you give more than you get, you build trust and communities. Sponsored posts and tweets take more than they give, because self-interest is the heart of the message. That simple fact, and the ability of people to pick up on that, is why sponsored messages in social media usually fail.
Good debate, thanks again.
Um, mean “IZEA is not getting much traction…” OK, signing out!
Late to the party. There is the new Edelman report out today that suggests there is less trust in social peer to peer than a year ago. Not sure I believe but if so in part due to this pollution. Paid tweets are bogus. Smart brands will learn the art and science of conversation strategy. It’s a whole different approach. You get customers and prospects to learn to opt in and you then learn to engage. Admittedly, if you could get Ashton Kutcher or someone with 1 million fans to tweet for you, that’s different. Paid endorsement of a celebrity is obvious that it’s done for the money. If you or I tweet for 10 or 20 bucks, we are deceitful without full disclosure. In which case we still lose cred for selling out and being sleazy.
Thanks Edward-fascinating finding from Edelman, I must check the report out properly. Not sure I agree either but if so perhaps a result as well of the explosion in the scale of social networking. Do bonds get weaker as networks get bigger? Absolutely agree about the difference in celebrity endorsement versus peer to peer endorsement. I expect celebrities to enthuse about brands and products for a price but I don’t expect it from peers. I can understand on one level how companies could look at the social web and phenomnae like social banking, social medicine, social VC and think “hey-social advertising!” but it seems to fundamentally misunderstand how the network works.
It is the big guys who will always be first and that in the end we revolve around. In the same way as the planets revolve around the sun and the sun is our most important star.
For those who need marmite in the mornings but haven’t heard of Marmite – here is a joyous moment… have some marmite.
With little more to say I reason with the side that this is a great opportunity for people to share and for posts that don’t matter won’t be looked upon like so many other stars in the sky… for some though a star is special.
Warm Regards,
Matthew Wright
http://www.socialprseo.com
Hi Patricia,
Are you familiar with #sixweeks (http://www.paulmccrudden.com/sixweeks.htm). A really interesting experiment in which Paul invoiced several brands for mentions he made on social networks over a six week period. Several paid up.
h.
[...] Should brands pay for tweets? Should twitterers take the cash or resist? Posted on janeiro 30, 2010 by renata lemos via bbh-labs.com [...]