Sponsored tweets have arrived in earnest and are creating quite a controversy. People are very passionate about this topic and view it as either a great thing or something that will send Twitter to the grave. Ultimately the effect will probably not be so extreme but sponsored tweets will likely have repercussions of varied strength across the entire Twitter ecosystem. Stakeholders include: advertisers, spokespeople, users, and the platform itself – the question is how will this play out and how will these stakeholders be affected.
The latest sponsored tweet program is brought to you by IZEA and has some high profile advocates and spokespeople already signed on. Basically, the sponsored tweet program works by aligning advertisers with “spokespeople” who would send out “approved” tweets in their behalf. Anybody can sign up to be a spokesperson, but the compensation for sending this tweet varies by the amount of influence the spokesperson has. Factors like Twitter Grade, # of followers, follow/follower ratio are considered to arrive at a value for a tweet by a specific spokesperson. If you would like a more in depth description, Jennifer Van Grove in this article for Mashable did a nice job of explaining the new IZEA program.
I know there are many people in the twitterverse who are excited about the opportunity to earn money by sending sponsored tweets, and these are people whom I greatly respect. And why shouldn’t they be excited? They have worked hard to cultivate a following and to provide value to them, and believe they should be able to get paid for their work. Many say that they would only accept sponsorship opportunities from companies and products that they would evangelize regardless of the pay. They say that it is important to maintain their integrity and credibility with their followers. This makes me wonder how many products or companies are exist that I feel so strongly about that I would organically evangelize – I can think of 3, 4, possibly a dozen if I really thought about it. So how likely is it that I would be able to match these natural affinities to a paid sponsorship opportunity? Probably not that frequently.
This type of sponsorship done with integrity is perfectly legitimate and ethical but its ultimate effect is a far cry from unpaid evangelism that charismatic brands organically generate. The very fact that someone gets paid to take an action, alters the actions that they will take. The very fact that they are earning money by promoting a brand affects their opinion of the brand. It is how the subconscious mind works and part of human nature (we have good feelings for things that benefit us). Integrity in respect to sponsored tweets may be more difficult to maintain than many realize.
So how does this affect the advertiser? Transparency is a feature of this new sponsored tweet program; disclosure is mandatory. How will viewers respond to a sponsored tweet? Will they value it as much as a non-sponsored tweet that evangelizes that same product, service or company? Will it inspire the same gut feelings in the mind of the customer, and have the ability to align groups that would naturally evangelize, or will everyone want a part of the pie and those who don’t get a piece because there isn’t enough go around become resentful? Will sponsored tweets generate backlash and negative sentiment if seen as an attempt to purchase favor?
In order to understand the true value to the advertiser one must consider what a follower really is and how they follow. Following is really a misnomer. We don’t follow people on twitter any more than we follow a TV or Radio station. We tune in from time to time and hear what’s on the air, but for the most of us we miss most of what has been broadcast. Yes, it is possible to go back and look at recent tweets from any unlocked twitter account but how often do we do this? TV and Radio advertising work because they have large passive audiences to which the advertisement containing a carefully crafted marketing message is repeated over and over again. Twitter is an interactive experience the audience is actively scanning for information and all tweets are fighting to be noticed. There is no benefit of visual or audio technical events to catch the viewer’s attention. How comfortable would a spokesperson be with posting a sponsored tweet over and over again?
This begs the question of how this affects personal brand. How will yours be affected if you choose to broadcast sponsored marketing messages to your followers? There is no one answer for this. It is unique to the person and the gut feeling that their audience has about them and the method and frequency that that person chooses to broadcast the messages. For some I suspect it would damage their brand, for others it would have little effect and for a few it may positively affect their image.
Sponsored blogs have been around for some time and after an initial negative reaction have been largely accepted as an honorable way to earn money for ones efforts. People use this as a justification for the efficacy of sponsored tweets but I feel the analogy fails. A sponsored blog usually contains a banner and link but rarely does a blogger incorporate a sponsors marketing message into the body of their blog. Blogs are fundamentally different than tweets – Tweets are broadcast in real time and appear in your stream. Blogs are visited either at your leisure or through RSS feed that you read at your leisure.
All this leads me to believe that sponsored tweets that include a specific value proposition and call to action (direct marketing) like “25% off for the first 100…” would the most effective, acceptable and offer the greatest value to followers. Additionally, advertisers love analytics that can quantify the true ROI of the campaign and direct marketing type efforts are easiest to measure. I guess it would be possible to cultivate sponsored conversations on twitter but this could backfire if the spokesperson is not knowledgeable about the product and aligned with the values of the brand.
I could be completely wrong, and if I am please tell me so, but it seems to me an advertiser’s would benefit much more by focusing their, energy, creativity, and dollars at cultivating organic word of mouth that will yield a long term boost in brand sentiment than the short term effects they could achieve through a paid word of mouth promotion. It certainly will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.
And finally, the other big question is how all this will affect twitter as a communications platform. What will users think and how will they react if brand messages coming from their friends start to account for a greater percentage of overall message volume?
I realize that this post raises more questions than it answers and I hope you take the time to comment and discuss these questions and more. Thanks for reading.
Personally, I know I would stop watching the tweets of a person who begins to do sponsored adverts. OTOH, I’m aware that a lot of the people I do watch happen to get paid for what they are doing and tweeting about. In fact, I’m in this position. The difference is, evangelists are hired for being advocates for a particular brand/product/open source project. Rarely are people hired for being an evangelist the way you hire a mercenary. If one gets hired to be an evangelist on a new technology for the evangelist, expect to spend a long time building understanding and enthusiasm for the self, first. I see this all the time @RedHat — we hire people to sell open source software, so we have to train people who may have never experienced the open source value proposition. That is, they have certainly experienced it, and just as likely have no idea it happened to them.
Anyway, I tend to concur with your thinking here. It will happen, it will change things for some people. It will likely split a large segment of the Twitterverse into two major camps — those who put up with sponsored tweets, and those who don’t. As long as the wider, meta-experience isn’t ruined, I could care less in the long run.
What would be good for all Twitter users? If the sponsorship could slice 1% off the paid amount to go back to Twitter. Think of it like Ebay transaction fees.
Karsten, I tend to agree with you here, and a very interesting idea to send a % back to twitter for providing the platform. I suspect that twitter will introduce their own advertising products and this may threaten them. Thanks for commenting :^)
I still have not formed my opinion yet…we are all pushing something, right now you are pushing this blog, if I RT it, am I advocating your opinion? At some point ads will appear on this site, am I providing you with free traffic to get to that point to make your site more valuable to sponsored ads? Should I be doing that for free because I am your friend? Maybe… because I hope that you will RT me in return, but do I need to think twice about it now? Do I want you to be able to monetize this site for free?
Not sure how pushing one’s blog, or website, or even your favorite music is different from sponsored tweets. If I tweet my friends blog and he makes money because of it, is that wrong as well?
People continue to say that they will unfollow people that use sponsored tweets, but every single RT or tweet that any of us put out in the twitterverse is in an attempt to make someone money, or to increase their traffic on their blog so eventually they can make some money.
You stated:
“What will users think and how will they react if brand messages coming from their friends start to account for a greater percentage of overall message volume?”
Those users will be seen as spammers, and only the idiots will use their account for more than 5% sponsored tweets. And I honestly don’t know many users that would even be stupid enough to use over 5% of their twitter stream as a moving billboard.
In the end, I see every tweet that is currently in the twitterverse as a way to network, to communicate and to hopefully at some point make some money on a blog, a business deal or a new website. So I fail to see the difference in sponsored tweets and what the majority of people are doing on twitter now.
And a little off topic, I honestly don’t care if Twitter has sponsored ads every 100 tweets or so…if it helps to keep the social media site I love alive, then I am all for it
Susan, thanks for taking the time to comment and for bringing up some very good points. I see what your saying but don’t altogether agree. Regardless, the point of my post was to bring up the issues and how they may affect the different stakeholders. Personally, I do see a difference between a paid tweet and an unpaid tweet regardless of the reason that the unpaid tweet is sent. A paid alliance is much different form an unpaid alliance and is different from acts taken to build relationships. Most of my RTs are done because I feel the content provides value to my followers. If it happens to build alliances and relationships a the same time – great. I sometimes RT things that I don’t advocate, but I do so because I feel they are either important, interesting, or provide balance. Also, not everyone on twitter is in it to make money. Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with sponsored tweets; It all depends on how it is done and its acceptability is something to be negotiated between the sender of the tweet and their followers. I just question the true value of sponsored tweets and the effect they will have. Certainly time will clarify all these questions. Thanks again for sharing.
Fantastic piece. You ask all of the right questions in exactly the right way. Great way to start a convo about this.
Thanks Olivier, that means a lot coming from you!
There are four issues here, Andrew: how it affects you, followers, advertisers, and the *ecosystem.* We can debate all day whether paid tweets denigrate personal brands (yes) or annoy followers (yes), but the real issue is the ecosystem pollution. Every attempt to spam other networks — fax machines, telephones, email — has eventually resulted in diminished utility for marketers as the network rebels. The two most obvious examples are the Do Not Call lists which pretty much shut down the telesales industry (except for nonprofits and politicians who can still send you robocalls over dinner) and email spam filters, which occasionally block important, real emails.
I fully expect social media to get polluted as well, and as users rebel, filters will arise to block out paid tweets. The result will be a more cumbersome human network and a scorched-earth playing field for marketers, who will have polluted any chance they have to really leverage Twitter etc. for honest word of mouth.
Don’t believe me? Stay tuned. We’ve been down this road before. It’s sad, but the individuals willing to shill their voices for pennies are destroying the very fluid network they now love so much.
Ben, great points you bring up. True the one thing that will affect us all is clutter in the ecosystem. A lot exists already and this can just add to it. This said, like Liz pointed out we only see the part of twitter we choose to interact with and we have the ability to purge those who create clutter from the part we choose to interact with. But who wants to have to devote time cleaning house. If sponsored tweets do take hold and then I think it will result in a contraction of followers for many who choose to post sponsored tweets. I guess we will see. Thanks for joining the conversation.
I sit here tired from an awesome day, trying to sort my thoughts, and I’m wondering how I’d feel if my awesome sponsor wanted me to make a late night tweet about their product for which I’d be paid $100. It’s interesting situation to ponder.
I believe with my heart, that just as in the early days of television, bloggers should get paid by commercial sponsors. But in those olden, golden days, Jack Paar walked away from his desk to another camera to talk about his sponsors.
Twitter doesn’t easily offer that option of separation. We often describe it as a cocktail party or a networking event or a conversation stream. It’s not natural to throw an ad in the middle of a conversation. I wouldn’t do add a short one sentence ad in a telephone call — personal or business. I wouldn’t do it at a networking event either.
This view of mine could be totally biased by how I choose to use the tool. 88% of my tweets start with @ signs I’m talking to people one at a time. I’m seriously aware that other folks are listening, lots of them, but my thoughts and my words are directed to individuals.
Now, other people use Twitter in other ways than I do. They use it as a broadcast system, more like a radio station. They are less relational, more informational. Their tweets are filled with facts, links, and retweets. So their experience of Twitter and their followers experience of sponsored Tweets could something altogether different.
One thing I think we all miss is that we only see the part of Twitter that includes the people we interact with. Every now and then I go to visit the public timeline to remind myself that people talk about other things.
I’m not convinced that what we might consider the waste producers of the ecosystem will kill it. I think they’re likely to find that as twitter groups apps evolve their groups don’t include people like me.
Liz, thanks for taking the time to think about this. I really like that you pointed out “One thing I think we all miss is that we only see the part of Twitter that includes the people we interact with” I think we all forget this from time to time and I personally need to be reminded of this. So it is clear that the acceptability of sponsored tweets is something that is silently negotiated between the sender and the receivers of the tweets. I suspect in some circles it will be perfectly acceptable and in others despised. There doesn’t seem to be much middle ground on this and for numerous reasons it is unlikely to take hold if the population is highly charged and divided about it.
Nice post, Andrew. Couple of quick opinions:
- People who get paid to tweet are more analogous to paid celebrity spokespeople than they are evangelists. Evangelists do what they do because they feel passionately about the product/service, not because they are paid
- To those that say, I will only tweet (paid) about products I would endorse anyway – I don’t believe you
- The simple solution would be for the paid tweeters to simply open an account just for this purpose. Then any of their followers could also follow them on the new account if they wished to see the paid stuff. Of course, this defeats the purpose of why advertisers want to work with people with large number of followers.
Tough question – no easy answers.
-Don B @donbart
Don, Thanks for sharing your opinions and yes there is no easy answer. The market will define either drive or kill sponsored tweets. Twitters real value to brands is not the ability to advertise but to create and activate true evangelists.
Andrew,
This is probably one of the best blog posts (and logical comments section) I have read regarding the sponsored tweet function. As someone that has been in this space for almost a year now, I thought I would chime in on this conversation.
I am Founder/CEO of Twittad.com which launched in August of 2008. We have run major brand campaigns for KMart, Sears, Craftsman, Land Rover, The Elations Co and several other’s. You may not have heard of these campaigns, because we operate in a clear and concise way that provides 100% full disclosure.
We have instituted our latest disclosure policy by using http://spon.in. This allows every single message from our network (along with some partners in the future) to be labeled as sponsored through the URL. Once a user clicks on a URL there is a top navigation bar that discloses that it was a sponsored message they just clicked on.
There are many more ideas that I have, including a way for users to not see sponsored tweets ever. You can see that in a article by Brian Solis http://bit.ly/mz6fx
Regards,
James Eliason
Founder/CEO Twittad.com
Founder Spon.In
Hello James,
Thanks for deciding to join the conversation and I’m glad you found value in the post. I will check out Twittad to see how it differs from the IZEA program. Feel free to contact me and send any links, info, etc. that you think may be relevant. I am really interested to know how your campaigns worked out for your advertisers.
Best regards,
Andrew
For me, sponsored tweets are a drag for two main reasons:
1) they’ll influence the tweeter’s “conversation” – his or her tweets. If someone is being paid every time they tweet about Starbucks, you can bet they’re going to be mentioning those lattes a lot more often than they otherwise would. They will be altering their “conversation” FOR THE SAKE OF RECEIVING THE DOLLARS. (Or am I to expect that the “Blue Light Special” reference will just organically pop up in your tweet stream conversation?) Personally, I don’t want to follow people who are getting paid by the brand-name-drop to talk to me, just as I wouldn’t want to talk to a someone at a cocktail party or backyard bbq if I knew that everytime he or she mentioned Walmart, for example, a dollar was dropped into his or her pocket. That could be worse than an Amway party! lol
2) Once a tweeter has tweeted out a “sponsored” tweet with a brand name in it, I can never believe that any further brand references from that tweeter are purely “evangelical” rather than sponsored. In fact, I’d assume that each brand reference by that tweeter IS paid for. That tweeter’s credibility with me? Zero, or close to it. Because it tells me that the tweeter can be bought. And bought cheaply. (I mean, how much does IZEA pay, anyway?! Can it really be that much? But how much is beside the point, anyway.) The tweeter can be bought. The tweeter’s opinions can be bought.
I’m no angel, and nobody’s perfect, and I don’t want to begrudge anybody a living however they choose. I’m just saying that sponsored tweets will impact credibility.
There IS a difference between advertising, between affiliations, and between sponsoring. Advertising?…Missionary sex. Affiliations?….Pimping. Sponsoring?…Prostitution.
I have a couple posts about this very subject on my blog.
Hi Patrick,
Many people share your same feelings about sponsored tweets. I am trying to be objective about this but wrestle with these same feelings. I think that I will have to look at every case individually. Some folks I know that are considering being part of the program have the utmost integrity and I know they consciously intend on only sponsoring products they evangelize regardless of pay. This said I know deep in my mind a paid endorsement will never carry the same weight as an unpaid endorsement. I can be hyper critical and I am certain that sponsored tweets from folks I don’t know well will carry no weight at all. I need to point out that I am not the average customer for any product and probably represent a tiny fraction of the population. The real question is how the average customers will respond.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Andrew
Andrew – It’s admirable that you’re trying to be objective. Now, if you want to see results that will make your cry (or throw up, depending on your nature – or rejoice if you’re the sponsoring company), check out IZEA’s case study of their campaign for KMart. Look at the metrics like number of mentions in tweets, as in SLIDE 27.
The case study is here: http://www.slideshare.net/tedmurphy/izea-kmart-campaign-casestudy-presentation
There’s the “objective” proof that sponsored tweeting “works.” Awesome. Looks like junk mail to me (quacks like a duck, etc.). And just imagine the number of unpaid REtweets that were forwarded along! (Do Retweeters of a sponsored tweet get a cut?) : )
I will get a chance later in the week thanks for bringing it to my attention
Reading this discussion further, I’m reminded of the late comedian Bill Hicks talking about artists who do spokesperson work. I believe he was talking about Jay Leno at the time recently starting a ‘Doritos’ advert campaign. Hicks point was exactly the one made above, that it ruins the credibility of the formerly credible. His specific words were, “YOU ARE OFF THE ARTISTIC ROLL F O R E V E R ! ! !”
Meaning, the act of becoming a shall stripped a person of their ability to be an honest artist. For the rest of their lives. I wonder how many people think about that before they sign a McDonald’s promotional deal?
Side note – Andrew, are you doing a bit of recursive testing by re-sending the same tweet about this blog post? I hadn’t thought about that affect in relation to sponsored tweets until you mentioned it above, and then I see you employing (apparently) the same tactic. Irony? Scientific query? Honest tactic? Just curious …
Yes the need to tweet about something more than once in order to create reach is exactly what I talked about – most people view twitter more like tv than email. I do it when I deem something important that should be thought/talked about regardless of where it originated and want to make sure the likelyhood of my followers seeing it. I have done this in the past a couple of times and each time I see new people RT it. This tells me that they likely did not notice the tweet when I sent it earlier. Brands would likely have to do the same thing and would likely employ numerous tweeters to send similar tweets in relatively close proximity. This is how they would gain coverage. Having the same or similar tweet come from me may annoy some and my interest in it is not influenced by another corporation paying me to send it, but you do have me thinking about how my followers feel about me doing this? I think I will ask them. Thanks
Terrific post Andrew. My two cents:
Whether I agree or not with sponsored tweeting is irrelevant because it is here to stay. It is the nature of such things – brands always want to try to figure out a way to put their messages in places where people congregate and companies like Izea try to systemize this effort and put processes against it. In doing so, Izea is giving brands a free pass into social media, without requiring or demanding any other real efforts from them.
Personally for me, I can’t hold it against people who want to monetize their ‘networks.’ It is a principle I don’t subscribe to or believe in, but I suppose everyone has a different agenda and we have to accept that.
This will change the economics of public social conversations and it will be interesting to watch what happens next.
@Karsten Wade
My company (adCause) lets users give from 0 to 100% of their publishers profits to charities, cause, and yes even Twitter.
We were one of the first Twitter marketing companies, and (we would argue) still the best
Our model is great for both publishers (Twitter users) and advertisers, as we let publishers set their own price, who they deal with, and how the ad will appear in their feed. Advertisers get a great deal by haggling for the best price.
The true winners of this whole process will be causes, charities, and Twitter.
Andy
Founder
adCause.com
Hello Andy,
Your comment sounds as much like a plug for your company as a comment on the points made in the blog post. I approved it because I think that people should be aware that it is possible to donate income from sponsored tweets (I am assuming that is what adcause does) to charities.
You have unique perspecive on this and I’d love to hear more about how your advertisers did, how much money was raised and what your thoughts on how each stakeholder is affected by sponsored tweets.
Thanks for joining the conversation.
Andrew, Thank you for your thoughtful post. I recently made the decision not to sign with sponsored tweet services such as @TweetROI and @Izea. You can read about my reasons here http://bit.ly/ZNGpC. Liz mentioned the dinner party metaphor. I brought this up in my post as well. It’s such a great analogy for they way some of us interact with our friends/guests/followers.
My hunch is that some people will find much needed revenue with ST where others will encounter the negative impacts of eroded trust. Also, it’s quite possible the audience will learn to avert their eyes from paid tweets the way they did with banner ads on the web.
Hello Kim, Thanks for sharing your feelings about this and your hunch seems right to me. I think the big unknown is if the advertisers will have success with this and if so how will it change how people use twitter. I will take a look at your post as soon as I get over this jet lag and can concentrate.
First off, Andrew thanks for a thoughtful and thought provoking look-see. As Twitter evolves, I suspect you are asking many of the right questions, but some significant questions may still be coming that will literally “change everything,” including, “what revenue model(s) will begin to evolve at Twitter, and/or will it be sold into a larger entity where its “uniqueness” can contribute to a more diversified bottom line, enabling Twitter’s investors to have a happy ending.
You herald the arrival of “sponsored tweets,” but haven’t they been around for a long time, even thought he form is a bit less transparent? How many MLM people are here now, DMing new followers with an offer? How many distributors and affiliates are offering “free” something’s, hoping for clickthrough’s to the “up-sell?” And how many of us throw in an occasional Tweet extolling our own offerings? Formally “sponsored tweets” are merely new kids on the block. The possible good news, as I see it, is that the IZEA initiative paves the way for more structure, transparency and accountability.
At my National Speakers Association Convention this July, David Nour (@davidnour) spoke of a hierarchy for tweets. As I recall, it went something like this: ask questions; provide answers; make, or quote, pithy comments; share mundane (personal) information; share; reference “links”; compliment someone; conduct contests/giveaways; RT others tweets; make recommendations to followers; use media; and, market. He emphasized that marketing should be LAST, and infrequently used. But how many of other types of tweets in the hierarchy are devoid of some form of “disguised” promotional content? If, for example, if all the “gurus” you tweet are quoted for their comments on personal development and you sell personal development services, is that tweet merely informative, or is it commercial, or “undocumented” commercial – absent disclosure?
MSM has been struggling with how to handle sponsorships, endorsements, compensated endorsements, spokespersons and product placement issues for years. Can the blogosphere and Twitter in particular, avoid its own economic evolution? And you are quite right in asserting that those who “have worked hard to cultivate a following and to provide value to them…should be able to get paid for their work.” You are also correct in being concerned about initial comments from those who might sign up for AZIA, or any other sponsorship program, who say they will “only accept sponsorship opportunities from companies and products that they would evangelize regardless of the pay.” As I saw in the ad world for years, once you become “compensated,” it’s hard to turn off the money spigot, typically opting for a moral position that affirms, “They have a good product and they deserve to have it presented by someone with a good reputation.” This position usually evolves as the sponsorship checks get bigger.
The notion that “followers” is something of a misnomer is also insightful and important to the discussion about “sponsored tweets.” Yes, we “tune in from time to time and hear what’s on the air,” but I suspect few of us follow anyone else with rabid consistency/thoroughness. This participation pattern will lead advertisers/sponsors to apply traditional measures, like frequency and reach into the mix in generating sponsorship revenue models, as the AZIA approach demonstrates. Some PR and community goodwill will creep in, but companies want prospect generation and sales in tough economic times (along the lines of Direct Response, not Image Advertising), and so, it’s often the community goodwill and PR budgets that get the ax first. Sponsors want control, hence the notion of “approved tweets.” And because Twitter, by its design, imposes a certain democracy on every tweet – no fancy type, exotic layout, or high production value – just 140 characters, control of content becomes an even more important consideration for the advertiser/sponsor. “Organic word of mouth” might be the ideal, but I suspect I’ll be seeing pigs fly before the bulk or any ad buy is centered there.
I suspect “sponsored tweets” will change some things, and certain folks on Twitter will take offense at them, particularly coming from friends. When, for example, a friend touts a restaurant and, after going, you don’t think it’s so special after all, you may question your friend’s taste/judgment, but you don’t get offended. If, though, the friend is a paid endorser for the restaurant, you will probably be offended. (In fact, wanting the friend to value friendship loyalty over job loyalty) warning you that it’s not so good before you go – even if you get a coupon. Some who become sponsored will abuse it. For most, though, and over time, I believe it will be a non-event. Over time, “sponsored tweets” will take their rightful place among the advertising/marketing offerings now available.
As proposed changes take form, it’s critical that open dialog, spurred on by posts like yours, explore the possibilities and the probabilities. Thanks for your post and making me think.
Hello John,
Thanks for your thorough and insightful comment! I find much value in your view and evaluation and think that you do sum things up well, “I believe it will be a non-event. Over time, “sponsored tweets” will take their rightful place among the advertising/marketing offerings now available.”
I too have come to believe that this will likely be a “non event” at least in my little corner of twitter. I will simply unfollow anyone who does not add value through their sponsored tweets, is annoying, or appears to show little integrity about what they sponsor. Because of the ease to follow/unfollow, I question whether the idea of sponsored tweets are viable for anyone other then those with twitter celebrity. I suspect that other active users will do the same. I would love to see any analysis of the initial effects of the program.
Andrew
When we talk about sponsored tweets, we often think of only Twitter and Twitter apps as being the conduit. There a likely many of other social technologies on the horizon that will enable more sponsored content, media rich tweet-ability, or even subscription style relationships that are similar.
Obviously the need to monetize social media isn’t going to go away, but to judge the validity of sponsored content only through what exists today is a bit premature. As long as the authenticity and transparency issues are respected, this could be very useful as a social and a commercial communication tool.
Just my two cents in an interesting discussion.