Advertising on Twitter

The recent national election in Iran and its aftermath brought Twitter into the spotlight as the medium of choice uniting protesters who believed the results were rigged. With severe restrictions imposed by the government on traditional journalists, tweets issued by Iranian citizens soon became one of the primary sources of information for those in the outside world.

The simplest way for anyone on Twitter to follow along to any breaking news is to search for the relevant hashtags. Hashtags, topic names that are proceeded by the "#" character, make it easier to search within Twitter by grouping content over multiple feeds. Anyone can attach any hashtag to any tweet, which allows the popularity of a particular topic to be exploited. And this was the ploy undertaken by Habitat, a British furniture company.

In a blatant attempt to piggyback on the enormous number of followers of the Iranian situation, Habitat issued promotional tweets for their business using the #mousavi hashtag, a reference to the losing candidate. One of these tweets even offered a chance to win a £1,000 gift card. The Twitter community was outraged that a topic devoted to the oppression of the Iranian people by its government was manipulated by a furniture company trolling for business.

According to The New York Times, Habitat apologized with a statement posted to a social media blog that included the following excerpt:

I know people have been waiting for a response tweet from us; we are treating this very seriously and wanted to offer a longer message.We have been reading everyone's comments carefully and would like to make a very sincere apology to any Twitter users who were offended.

Using Twitter as an advertising platform has garnered much attention over the past year, particularly with rumors of a takeover by Google or Microsoft. The exponential growth of Twitter has led some to estimate that the company could be worth over $500 million. But with no revenues to speak of, thoughts have turned to monetizing the service by accepting advertising to justify the lofty valuations.

Some companies already have been successful in using Twitter as a marketing tool. Dell, in particular, announced last month that it has made over $3 million by its promoting its refurbished computers and accessories through its Twitter account. The problem for Twitter is that it doesn't see one penny of this. In their quest to figure out a way to generate revenues, Habitat may have inadvertently blazed a trail for others to follow.

From the early days of newspaper publishing through magazines, radio, television and the World Wide Web, media magnates and advertisers have formed a symbiotic relationship: one reaps the reward by renting out audience access to those willing to pay for it. This model has evolved to the point where advertising in these media is accepted and expected. When reading a newspaper or magazine, the ads have their place on the printed page. Same with television with its use of thirty-second spots and infomercials. The Web primarily uses banners and text blurbs located in certain places on the page. Any deviation from this norm causes unease to the consumer of such content; it breaks user expectations honed by past experience.

That was one reason the Habitat promotion causes such a backlash. It appeared where it was least expected on a topic that had no relevance to the advertiser. If one goes by the rule of thumb that all publicity is good publicity, then Habitat scored a coup. And Twitter still did not see any revenue even though it was providing the access.

The options for Twitter going forward are limited. In press accounts, Twitter executives have said they will try to monetize their service by assisting businesses in promoting and selling their products and services. They have also said that they will exploit real-time search capabilities of Twitter feeds. No one has elaborated on exactly how any of this would work or how it can generate enough revenue to justify the company valuations.

That is why, ultimately, they may have no choice but to resort to accept advertising that will be placed randomly into tweets of any topic, particularly if they can form some sort of a demographic profile of each Twitter user. Banner ads are not a viable option as users can access Twitter from different devices and software with many not having the real estate to accommodate graphical ads or video spots.

In the end, it will be up to the nebulous audience of Twitter users to pass judgment on any form of advertising on the social networking service. A strong thumbs-down would cause alienation with its most ardent users and may doom Twitter to join the ranks of Facebook and YouTube -- services that have garnered enormous audiences yet fail to make any profit.

Birdies and Tweets

In an address on the state of the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA), commissioner Carolyn Bivens encouraged the players on her tour to use Twitter during competitive rounds as a way to connect with fans. Even though, she admitted, this would be an implicit breach of golfing etiquette. The response from two of the tour's most prominent players was swift and decisive.

Paula Creamer, a ten-time winner on the LPGA tour and an avid user of Twitter, issued the following tweet soon after the commissioner's statement:

I will not be twittering in my round. It should not happen in any sport. The players have already told the tour no way.

Morgan Pressel, another tour champion, wrote this on Twitter in response to a fan's comment:

Thanks for the luck and NO I will not be tweeting when I play.

Photo Credit:Keith AllisonAfter fielding numerous complaints similar to those by Ms. Creamer, pictured at right, and Ms. Pressel, the commissioner clarified her remarks: "While the LPGA does not support, nor has it ever encouraged, any kind of interaction with social media during tournament play, we do believe social media is as important to golf as it is to all sports."

The LPGA has been under considerable economic stress of late correlating with the downturn in the economy. In fact, to use a prominent example, the organizers of the LPGA Corning Classic, a fixture on the tour for 31 years, withdrew sponsorship of their premiere event. The LPGA is certainly not alone: the four major sports organizations as well as NASCAR have seen both reduced attendance numbers and declining revenues.

So it is no surprise that Ms. Bivens, in an attempt to solidify and expand the LPGA fan base, encouraged the use of Twitter by the players. At first glance, it seems like a reasonable idea. Golf has many natural breaks during each round of play -- the walk after a tee shot or the time after a successful putt provide ample opportunity to whip out a cell phone and issue a tweet. So why not give fans an unparalleled account of one's thoughts and feelings at that very moment? Such a real-time connection with fans is simply unattainable at post-round press conferences or newspaper accounts written by a third party.

But the backlash from the very players who would presumably benefit from this idea was striking in its ferocity. One intriguing aspect is that the most critical comments were not from the older generation of players who, perhaps, may not feel comfortable with the idea of such technological interactions with fans. Rather, the dissent came from the younger players who already use Twitter extensively and have thousands of followers. It was they who recognized that a line was being crossed that threatened the integrity and tradition of the game.

With its history stretching back hundreds of years to its origins in Scotland, Golf has cultivated a deep tradition that is particularly sensitive to change. One hopes that Ms. Bivens would have been more cognizant of such tradition and its strong pull on both the players and fans of golf. One can't sacrifice the integrity of the game for the debatable prospect that using Twitter can increase the popularity of the sport.

So much of the success of golf depends not on the physical, but rather the mental part of the game. Legendary golfer Bobby Jones famously quipped: "Golf is a game that is played on a five-inch course -- the distance between your ears." Having Twitter as a distraction, not just to the player using it but to others in the vicinity, can make anyone question whether a player's concentration was affected. Was a crucial putt missed because more time was spent wondering what to tweet rather than analyzing the contours of the green?

The intimate intrusion of the outside world can give the perception -- whether rooted in reality or not -- that the outcome of play on the golf course was not dependent solely on the skill of the players taking part. Ms. Bivens was wise to retract her support of support of such a policy. In the long run, it could have relegated a struggling tour to second-class status in the world of professional sports.

Twitter: Stalking Device

Israel Hyman and his wife went on vacation not too long ago. Upon returning, they found that someone had broken into their house and absconded with his MacBook Pro and other audio/visual equipment. Not only did Mr. Hyman suffer the mental anguish of having his privacy violated, but as the operator of a video business, this loss impacted his livelihood as well. So what does this have to do with Twitter? Mr. Hyman claims that Twitter could be to blame for the theft.

On his own blog, Mr. Hyman wrote: "Anyway, the story is getting some attention on the local news because there's a chance the criminals knew we were gone because I twittered about my family's trip."

In an interview with Fox News, Mr. Hyman added: "It might not have anything to do with [Twitter]. I have suspicions that it might, because we tried to keep it quiet in the neighborhood that we were going to be leaving. We told one neighbor, who locally kind of watches the neighborhood real well for us. But then we've got a lot of people following us on Twitter, relatively a lot of people, so we announced we were going out of town and a couple of days later somebody took [our Mac Pro]."

A defining characteristics of Twitter is how it feeds the narcissistic tendencies within all of us. Its built-in conceit is the belief that others are interested in the everyday minutia of our lives. Judging by Twitter's initial success and unparalleled growth, it appears to have fulfilled a need for self-expression far beyond what other technologies allow. This incessant broadcasting of our lives, however, comes with its own set of dangers beyond its pernicious effect of inflating our egos.

One of these dangers is the lack of privacy. When users of Twitter expound on so much of what comprises their daily routines, the expectation that they can be selective as to what can be kept private is diminished. Despite the best of efforts, a careful perusal of many Twitter accounts can provide insight into how a person's life is led. The basics, at the very least, are easily gleaned: Where do they work? What are their favorite foods? When are they home? Do they go to a gym?

In Mr. Hyman's case, he feels that the burglar may have stalked him on Twitter and concluded that his house was vacant, ready to be plundered. Technology has made this kind of stalking simple and untraceable in virtual reality. Before the interconnectedness of the Internet age, stalking was decidedly low-tech. In determining whether a house was left unoccupied, a potential burglar may review a checklist of tell-tale signs: Have newspapers gathered on the front porch? Are the living room lights on in the evening? Has the car remained unmoved? This came with the physical risk that the person doing the surveillance would be spotted by vigilant neighbors.

Now, with Twitter, stalking can be accomplished with the comfort and safety that online detachment provides. Commentators to Mr. Hyman's situation have made it clear that it should have been obvious not to use Twitter to announce vacation plans. But the absence of information is also telling. If the person in question, nominally a dedicated Twitter user, is suddenly negligent in issuing tweets, that can be an indicator of travel plans as well. A break in any Twittering pattern becomes a red flag to those paying close enough attention.

There is also stalking once removed. An example: A dedicated employee can note with feelings of relief that his or her boss is on vacation. While this may provide fodder for subsequent comments of not having to work so diligently, it also tells a hyper-aware follower that the boss's own home could be vacant. No one is safe from the overeager tendency of Twitter users to detail every aspect of their lives.

None of this, per se, is Twitter's fault. It is only a medium -- nothing more and nothing less. It's the unbridled and reckless zeal of some of its users that increases their risk of being stalked. And perhaps it is these users who can learn the most from what happened to Mr. Hyman.