Comments on: When everyone’s a broadcaster, is everyone an advertiser?

By: Jaidyn

Jaidyn — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:09:14 +0000

Apple now has Rhapsody as an app, which is a great start, but it is currently hampered by the inability to store locally in your iPod, and it has a dismal 64kbps bit rate. If this changes, then it’ll somewhat negate this advantage for that Zune, but the 10 songs per month will still be a big plus in Zune Pass’ favor.

By: Should brands pay for tweets? Should twitterers take the cash or resist? | nowdern life

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:00:37 +0000

[...] Should brands pay for tweets? Should twitterers take the cash or resist? Posted on janeiro 30, 2010 by renata lemos via bbh-labs.com [...]

By: Hugh Garry

Hugh Garry — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:03:01 +0000

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.

By: Matthew Wright

Matthew Wright — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:35:28 +0000

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

By: Patricia

Patricia — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:39:11 +0000

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.

By: Edward Boches

Edward Boches — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:26:21 +0000

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.

By: Ben Kunz

Ben Kunz — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:24:40 +0000

Um, mean “IZEA is not getting much traction…” OK, signing out!

By: Ben Kunz

Ben Kunz — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:23:56 +0000

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.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:50:43 +0000

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.

By: Nick Myers

Nick Myers — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:57:40 +0000

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?