October 30, 2009 • 1:50 am
I have been having a back and fourth with several readers over at a VC’s website as this particular VC was shingling his new investment. this particular company as far as i can see – inserts micro messages or ads in to someones micro format so that the followers receive a product reccomendation or endorsement from a ‘valid’ source. here is what they say they do
Ad.ly enables Twitter publishers to make money from the content they produce on Twitter by sending one Tweet every day from advertisers that they approve. In order to ensure authenticity, every Ad.ly Tweet is explicitly approved by the Twitter publisher. The publishers are able to set the price they want advertisers to pay and can optionally donate part or all of their earnings to charity.
this is a horrible model.
its taking old world rules and applying them to a new world way of communicating. all you need to do is read a little of this guy and you will understand how un-awsome this business really is.
its a strategic error to build a business based on yesterdays rules being applied to todays innovations. And its companies like this that could drag twitter down the spam drain if its not careful.
Filed under: Uncategorized
October 29, 2009 • 4:12 pm
so why then not build against the consumers explicit action? after all this is where we are headed from a control point of view. If the hypotheses is to push (whether authentic, transparent or not) its an action that has not been explicitly asked for and therefore will logically be made redundant as control continues to crash towards the consumer.
your third paragraph i completely disagree with. being exposed to the ads will be triggered by an action – it wont and cant be any other way down the road. I am not following the user so that he she or it can stream me ads – thats fake authenticity – thats like saying – you know me and we are friends so here is an ad for a bagel place.
I’ll tell you whats authentic (and this is what we have built)
I text in an implicit command to my “butler” – the service then notifies relevant merchants of my ‘intent’ VIA text) and other pieces of meta associated with my profile or my social exhaust – and some type of marketing interaction results.
i get to build a great virtual real time butler, the merchant gets to take action on hot leads instantly and cost effectively.
Originally posted as a comment
by markslater
on Both Sides of the Table using DISQUS.
Filed under: Uncategorized
i find this very confusing.
Firstly – congrats on the overture investment i did not realize you were in that deal.
Secondly – and something i ponder often – why this continued acceptance of push? Authenticity aside, i struggle to come to terms with a world that continues to accept being pushed at. Why cant it be as simple as – i make a small social or commerce gesture – lets say “sweater” to XXXXX. – that is an implicit and open gesture that sais – i am thinking bout buying a sweater for the fall – i am open for business” this gestures authenticates a marketing action on the other side by a merchant.
I have told the market that i am “in the market” – and am ready and willing to be messaged – but this is “pulling an ad” not having one pushed at you.
I personally despise ads. But i equally want to be marketed to when i am decide. See the power of a command Line interface, in to my world from my phone (SMS) can do all this for me – applications and platforms can form this market – it can all happen in real time and i can generate a sociual exhaust that can be networked and gamed amongst my friends.
A merchant has a phone too – and can be notified of potential business – in real time and can prospect that business – in real-time. Find me a restaurant that would not want to put asses in seats on a slow night and be able to do it right from the phone in real-time. Hell find me a small business that would not want to use a light weighted texting micro market – they cant afford a billboard or a magazine ad?
See advertizing as we know it (to take an Umair phrase) is being exploded and atomized – and that to me – includes the notion of push. Whats more the atomization of this silo – means that tiny pieces of data can yield commerce in a real time and meaningful way for both sides of the transaction.
We are attempting to build against this hypotheses. i hope we succeed as i can then be done with being ‘pushed’ around by advertizers.
Originally posted as a comment
by markslater
on Both Sides of the Table using DISQUS.
Filed under: Uncategorized
everyone i know now shares information or participates in a sharing exercise online.
this article this morning, got me thinking about what i believe is the paradox of fake. Its all around us in our business lives and it is being slowly eroded. The fakeness (is that a word?) like a bubble that so many of us exist within in our professional lives is slowly becoming transparent.
consider this
We were talking to the VP for online strategy at a big Silicon Valley company last week. Among other tasks she helps the company’s senior executives create a presence on Facebook and Twitter.
“Some of them are terrified,” she said.
What’s so scary? Many executives fear posting something personal that might prove damaging. It needn’t be a lampshade on the head, either. Perhaps it’s vacation photos from a second home that looks too opulent at a time when employees are losing jobs. Or maybe their support for a controversial ballot proposition proves a bit too vocal.
That’s why you see some executives, if they’re on Facebook at all, posed in their profile picture as if for the annual report, and with nothing personal posted to their “information” tab. Such reticence will soon be scarce as all of us recognize the powerful and important reasons for sharing our personal selves online.
That is positively commical. The very executives who’s mandate is to drive the populations publicness – has second thoughts about lifting its skirt! This is the paradox of fake when these people are so conflicted by being who they really are as it clashes with who they believe they professionally feel the need to be seen as.
The bottom line is we live our lives in public. In fact we always have. We have just chosen to speak about privacy rather than our own level of publicness. read Jeff jarvis on the subject. This is a great article that truly captures this notion of publicness, and why statements like that above, Coming from the harvard Business School no less are truly perplexing.
the paradox of fake – demands that if you truly want your professional persona seperated from who you really are – then you cannot exist in any fashion online – no digital mirror, no ambient intimacy – nothing. The internet wont let you. If you try to control this and put a PR piece out there, you will be found out for what you really are eventually.
Which brings me to my last point: The importance of face to face interaction has grown exponentially. For me its still the ground zero of who a person truly is.
Filed under: Uncategorized
what a joke.
this article this morning got me going
Look i am sympathetic to those employees who are facing displacement, and loss of lifetime guarantees (;)) but lets face facts. the economics of the distribution model for newspapers are broken. its simple – people are consuming their news online.
But now we have to suffer through comments from this crook Kerry:
Washington Times
has the quote: “America’s newspapers are struggling to survive, and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount.”
last i checked, our democracy is alive and thriving across the millions of blogs and more professional journalistic digital epicenters including the online home of all those papers that are threatened. To make the argument that the extinction of a paper will threaten the freedom of the press is absurd. What is being extinguished is HOW you deliver, not WHAT you deliver.
juxtapose this with our favorite pandering pay for hire politicians that will soapbox their way to some type of systemic risk argument associated with the demise of the paper, and you begin to get a much clearer picture of the problems with our democracy.
And we didn’t vote for you so that you could represent a vested interest in Washington. Market economics should be the only barometer that decides the fate of the globe. Just because your generation ’surfs’ rarely doesn’t mean you have to impose your printing press on us. our press is called wordpress, and it atomizes and prints news and opinion that i get to consume from all over the world. our version of freedom of speech is digital and more powerful than yours to a significant exponent.
The new world order is about millions of opinions – accessible instantaneously – not just yours. I’ve said this before – you have a choice. Join the conversation, and adjust your business model with the times (IE furlow your printing presses – see car companies and dealers, or music labels if you want to know what is coming next) or die.
Next up on deck. (take your pick)
- Television
- consumer finance
Filed under: social media, the economy