Since Google Adwords debuted in 2001 and exploded, making search the #1 online marketing platform, myriad ideas have been tried to emulate those riches (for both advertisers and web start-ups).
Recently, companies are popping up that try to use social media as a monetized advertising source. Case in point: Sponsored Tweets.
Sponsored Tweets has a stable of celebrity Tweeters with many followers and much influence. For a fee, these celebs will start a conversation about your product or service, promoting it to their thousands of followers. The stable at the company include Leanne Rimes, Bob Villa, Kim Kardashian. Yes, for $2941, Bob Villa will start a chat about your excellent new lawn mower.
One such celeb that is listed on their network is Bethenny Frankel, the daughter of the late Bobby Frankel. Her 85,000 followers can learn quickly about your new mixing bowl or hey, why not : Who she likes in the third at Belmont. Scratch that, make it Keeneland. I doubt she would send people to Belmont after bathroom-gate; it is just so not her.
Being a search marketer I have deep concerns over the ethics (and some skepticism about ROI based results) of such avenues, and this post is more tongue-in-cheek, but it is interesting. I would love to see some celeb’s talking about racing on Twitter. How about you?
For example:
Tiger Woods: “Things have been wild and crazy lately so I am unwinding by heading to Calder!”
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: “When the economy is slow, I like to hit the track”
Dog the Bounty Hunter: “I like to chase fugitives near racetracks. That way when I catch them early I can make the daily double”
Can Bethenny save racing? I doubt it, but if you see hundreds of women at the track some week, with Prada bags, really neat hats and a “I really want to be on TV” look, perhaps she has just tweeted about the ‘awesome’ food at Philly Park.
For a full list of sponsored tweeters, it’s here.
8 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Dubious about the viability and very skeptical over potential, if any, measurable ROI from this. People very quickly train themselves to ignore ads and this may even lead to un-follows.
Guy Kawasaki is one of the most subscribed to bloggers in the world but his Audi (sponsored) blog entries I think negatively affected me, leading to an unsubscribe, even though some of his content might be useful.
Of course the big issue is that on Twitter, “everyone’s talking, nobody’s listening”. My average CTR on linked articles (that I think are worth reading – and I’m not being paid to say that) measured from j.mp has continued to decline as I get more followers. Currently it’s around 5% from 8% not too long ago. To lead to any sort of significant conversion rate, you would need hundreds of thousands of followers. Try having meaningful relationships with your followers then; you can’t possibly acknowledge any feedback on the ad you gave. Just seems like a surefire way to turn people off you and the product you’re hawking.
Yes, I’m with Robin on this one.
The problem with Twitter getting all tapped out by the new marketeers is that Twitter itself will float into myspace land. I can see this happening already with racing bloggers. Bloggers just pushing, pushing, pushing. No intent on any meaningful back & forth. Just mindless pushing.
I only follow around 100 people…and my threshold for adding more people is very low. I’ll give someone a couple days and if it’s all just BS…then it’s unsubscribe time. I can’t imagine how some racing folks on Twitter follow thousands of people. The signal to noise ratio is way beyond unacceptable.
Add in the spam and the sponsored tweets stuff is probably the signal that this *particular* tool (NOT the medium) is reaching its zenith, it’s all downhill from here.
I don’t disagree with you on many of your points. As we know, you have to provide value for followers to follow, and right now there is not a ton of value. But the medium in general, can stress and exploit that value, and why perhaps companies like “Sponsored Tweets” might be on the right track in many instances.
For example, if Oprah tweets about a book, it can sell 200k copies and provide value to the author, and those who want to read what Oprah reads (that is why they follow her after all). If Martha Stewart tweets about something at the Christmas Tree store she bought, chances are it will be sold out by the time you get there. That has value if people like the product they might have never seen, and of course for the store. It is ‘embedded/conversational’ marketing (if done the right way) – not push marketing, or interruption marketing.
That is a fine line to walk, imo, and many companies will shoot themselves in the foot trying to achieve that goal. Some of the most successful folks I have seen leveraging twitter have been those who run free contests, or free stuff to followers. Thus far, not a lot else. And without conversation, I don’t think it will work very well long term at all.
JMO
D
PS: Just a quick question…..
You guys are fairly early adopters to Twitter, no? I wonder how you find the curve of people to follow and continue to follow. For me it is like a chat board. I know when I go to a board there are posters I will always read, as they provide entertainment, or I learn something. There are many others that I do not read because I get nothing out of them. But this took me some time – I did not know right away who to read or not read.
Do you find it the same way on twitter? Is each day a learning experience on who you want and dont want to follow? Will it be never-ending, where you just get tired of it, or do you think when you have it refined, you think it would be a long term medium for you?
D
I am with Robin and O_Crunk on this one. I find with the increase in people to follow I quickly get disinterested and turned off by the “pushing”, marketing and selling. and really what normal person can get anything out of following 100′s of people. Our brains don’t even work that fast to possibly comprehend those #’s for any length of time.
Dean, I agree with Robin, but I certainly see your points as far as marketing with the big name, goes. I don’t agree with o-crunk — and I’ve had numerous discussions with him on Twitter about journalistic uses for the medium that he just can’t see.
Just the other day, for example, I”d blogged and tweeted about the Venezuelan filly Bambera running in the Clasico del Caribe in Puerto Rico, and then coming to the US after that. Robin, I’m sure, saw some of this, as did Twitter user Beth Arkin, who found a ustream live carry of the race. I blogged and tweeted this, and we had quite a few people log on and watch the race live as a result of Beth’s work. I tweeted the race live –several people on phones got it — and then blogged a story about it that’s been picked up in bits and pieces here and there.
Ordinarily, this wouldn’t have been available. Of course, the trades, like DRF, TDN, TTimes, BH, etc., completely missed the boat.
Dean, I follow people pretty much the way you describe. Like on PA, after reading for 4 years, there are about 4 or 5 posters there who I listen to, most everything else I’ve tuned out at this point. Now with twitter, I’m finding the same thing.
Sid, my disagreement with you has absolutely nothing to do with the point I’m making here. Are there journalistic uses? Of course. I never said there wasn’t.
Thanks for all the comments and ideas guys. I am currently sifting through some of the sessions at a Chicago conference on twitter et al, and find I am thinking more about some of the critiques and chat here, than I am going thru the sessions.