Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Grows Up, Adds "Promoted Tweets"
CWmike writes "Twitter is finally taking off the training wheels and moving into the world where real businesses tread with the launch on Tuesday of its first advertising model, dubbed 'Promoted Tweets.' The microblogging phenom has long avoided coming up with a business plan or even talking about one. But the time has come for Twitter to figure out how to make money over the long haul. Analyst Dan Old isn't so sure that Twitter users will welcome the change. 'There will be a vocal minority of users who will hate any advertising at all,' Olds said. '[Many] users understand that it's necessary and will accept it as long as it doesn't interfere with their usage. But if the ads look like regular tweets, that could cause some serious outrage from users who feel that Twitter is attempting to deceive them.'"
Twitter is adding advertisements? Say it ain't true!
I've never heard of a dot-com company before that:
1. Starts with an ungodly amount of free money from investors
2. Becomes very, very popular, all while losing many millions of dollars
3. When the investment money invariably begins to slow down, the company tries to "monetize" a money-losing idea.
4. People hop off to the newest fad, leaving this one to languish and to be used by spammers and people from the Phillipines.
5. The company is bought by some much larger company for a ridiculous amount of money.
6. The large company can't capitalize on the earlier popularity, and the brand dies.
Yawn.
I don't respond to AC's.
No, they mean that while most people don't particularly like ads, they'll accept them- as much out of passiveness and lazyness as the understanding that they're funding the site- but that a disproportionately noisy minority will whine and bitch about it, thinking that because they've enjoyed a free and adless service for so long that they're entitled to that forever, rather than being grateful that they got it for nothing for so long.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
"Grateful" is an interesting term to use when discussing the relationship of consumer to corporation.
I should be "grateful" that something I didn't ask for has intruded in my life to the point where many of the websites I visit for news or entertainment have live twitter-fed widgets that take up space but didn't cost me anything, until now that it creates yet another ad stream.
And just how is twitter better than IRC? Besides having the advertisements that I should now be grateful for?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Grateful has nothing to do with it. If you offer a free service that I like (this SO does not apply to twitter, but speaking in general) I might use it. If you then start charging for it or bugging me in a way that in my opinion outweighs the value I get from it, then I might stop using it. Your business model is up you you but frankly I don't find it particularly ethically superior to offer a "free" service while having full intention in the back of your mind to changing the rules as soon as you got enough people hooked in, compared to just charging for it in the first place.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
It would make my day to have a vacuous twat read some marketroid tweet on live TV.
How exactly would this be different from the rest of their programming?
And just how is twitter better than IRC?>
It's better because a flashy dotcom startup can put themselves into the message loop for everyone on the planet, causing a single centralised point of failure for global communications, and add unwanted noise to your signal, while extracting and salting away millions of dollars in profit, making lots of business transactions less efficient in the process.
Oh, you meant better for the users? It's not at all. But they don't make the venture capital magazines, do they?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
We'll have tools that will hide the adverts, and do our best to make them widespread.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
You're assuming that advertisers would be held to the same limit as users.
Why would they be? After all, they're paying for that ad space.
+1 Funny Signature