Commentary

Twitter Stirs Controversy By Not Unveiling Ad Service

failwhale

There's a fine line between a boom and a bubble, and I'm worried that the social media explosion is starting to show some signs of the latter. The trend has a lot of potentially bubble-like characteristics: for example, a dizzying number of new companies are launching and raising loads of cash, but without comparable increases in actual revenues, on vague promises of an ad-supported model. Then, to satisfy investor expectations, they are pressured to introduce half-baked ad platforms before they're ready or even fully thought out.

In this fevered psychological environment, rumors become buzz, which becomes accepted fact without any basis in reality - and then companies are punished when they fail to fulfill these expectations. Case in point: Twitter's presentation at SXSW. Apparently it was widely expected that Twitter would unveil a new ad platform. When it didn't, the Internet was rife with anti-buzz - gossip and speculation about why the ad platform is "delayed."

This is all a bit silly, for a couple reasons. First of all, to the best of my knowledge Twitter never actually promised to unveil an ad platform at SXSW - it just let slip some very general hints of something important (admittedly, this an annoyingly ambiguous announcement right out of Steve Jobs' playbook). It turned out the new Twitter feature is an information-sharing tool for publishers, @anywhere, which actually looks pretty neat, letting publishers transform connect hyperlinks to indexes of Twitter content on those topics. It's just not an ad platform.

Second, from a rational -- i.e., non-bubble -- perspective, doesn't a company deserve praise, rather than petulant protests (on its own social network, no less!) for not rushing a crappy, poorly thought out, unfinished ad platform into service just to please an audience at an industry event? This would be the definition of bubble-dumb -- shortsighted and self-defeating -- and frankly, the widespread disappointment expressed by the audience is a reflection of that very mentality. Sorry, SXSW-ers: yes, the event is important, and your opinion is important, too -- but not so important that a burgeoning new medium should risk torpedoing its future prospects just to round out your weekend. It's called a business plan; it takes planning.

The final irony is that in the kvetching about the "delay" in Twitter's ad platform (a prejudicial term, as it suggests there was some kind of published schedule) everyone is overlooking the possibilities of the new @anywhere feature. No, maybe not earth-shattering like, say, something that makes moneymoneymoney, but still a neat new offering that enhances Twitter's utility and potential reach -- that is, increasing its actual long-term value for whenever they do get around to monetizing it.

3 comments about "Twitter Stirs Controversy By Not Unveiling Ad Service".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Howie Goldfarb from Blue Star Strategic Marketing, March 16, 2010 at 5:09 p.m.

    Fact is Social Media should be sold as technology not Ad Based. Twitter and Facebook easily could make a lot of money from subscriptions and licensing their technology. The Ad Based Model is going to fail. Because Facebook has been trying to exploit the content vs protect the content of their user base people will leave in droves when the next great network arrives. And it will. But what if instead they protected content and allowed people to invest significant effort creating their presence (like myspace allows) they would be less likely to leave. Think of these networks like cell phones. In 2 years you skip to the next one even though you have photos and info on your old one.

    So with too many start ups chasing too little revenue there is going to be a crash. So it is a bubble. Good news is these businesses aren't public companies. So it will be the VCs getting fleeced this time and not investors like the Dot.com era did. That is assuming the bubble bursts before the IPO's.

  2. Steve Sarner from if(we), March 16, 2010 at 5:54 p.m.

    Refreshing perspective Erik. And Howie, I agree that way too many web businesses base a business model on advertising that will not likely materialize.

    I disagree, however, that Facebook will have people leave in droves but, we'll see. And even though it is often generalized that people dispose of social networks often - as with your cell phone analogy - the facts don't always support this claim.

    Social media sites with a diverse revenue model that create value for their members will be long term winners. A number of them are doing very well with both revenue and profit growth and will continue to do so as they innovate and provide true value for their members and customers.

  3. Mark McLaughlin, March 16, 2010 at 9:29 p.m.

    SXSW is the digerati talking to themselves.

    Here, we have a journalist who writes about digital advertising talking about people who focus their careers on Internet advertising complaining about Twitter not being focused enough on Internet advertising.

    Yet, the CMOs of the Fortune 500 companies are sleeping peacefully.

    Who, exactly, is staying up late hoping that Twitter will ad even more billions of page views with little tiny ads on them to the inventory that is already available?

    I think it is the people with nothing better to do.

Next story loading loading..