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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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