You pretty much lost all credibility when you quoted this:
>Harvard – one of the most prestigious universities – awarded an MBA to George W Bush. A man many of us wouldn’t trust to sit the right way round on a toilet.
As a reason not to trust Harvard. The world gets it. Those republicans surrreee are dummies.
/puke
The rest of your article is a bit naive. Computational linguistics is not considered a solved problem yet. Yes, twitter might have 26,000 or some odd tweets from you, but that doesn't mean that they "know" anything about you. It's dumb text.
In fact, now that you've tweeted at the sun newspaper, how is twitter to know that you aren't interested in that newspaper? You're interacting with it, of course you would want to see ads from it, right?
This [meaning targeted advertising] works for facebook (although arguably well since the meme is that facebook ads don't perform) because of the "like" system. I target ads at people who have "liked" things, not at people who have talked about them.
I'm also curious to see what the author thinks about how Twitter should go about monetizing their model.
Twitter is getting pressure to start making returns, and it is obvious that the author doesn't like advertising - but what does he think would be a solution?
I've been noticing a trend in backlash towards advertising over "social" platforms (e.g. App.net), but other than the Public Broadcasting Station model, how else can they cover costs?
I'm also curious to see what the author thinks about how Twitter should go about monetizing their model.
Looking at the author's revision to the Twitter Quadrant at the bottom of the article, it may be this:
1. Fun!!!
2. ???
3. Profit!
---
I've been noticing a trend in backlash towards advertising over "social" platforms (e.g. App.net), but other than the Public Broadcasting Station model, how else can they cover costs?
The bit.ly model is what the Twitter Quadrant reminds me of - providing service A for free, then providing service B (analytics of service A) for a price.
Actually, I don't mind advertising. I worked for a mobile ad start-up for a year.
The problem is, the advertising isn't separate from the editorial.
Having a promoted Tweet is the equivalent of a friend turning to you at dinner and say "Man! I could sure go for a Duff Beer right now. With its clean filtered taste and low alcohol rate - it's the Beer that keeps on giving. Duff!"
I've sketched out some ideas in the comments here and on the blog. I'm but a lowly geek - I don't profess to have the cast iron formula to help Twitter get an ROI.
I just know this way leave me (and many others) deeply dissatisfied.
Very simple: what is the cost per year per user? app.net started with a number of users that keeps the lights on. As they grow, there is no reason the cost per user needs to go up. The price of the service guarantees profitability as long as they maintain a minimum number of users.
The problem with Twitter is that they grew to hundreds of millions of free users before figuring out a business model. At that scale, the only model that's proven to work is ads.
On to your main point. Sentiment analysis is still imprecise - but seeing as the majority of my (news) links go to The Guardian or Independent, and none go to tabloids - it's not a stretch to say I'm unlikey to visit a News International title.
I've never (knowingly) Tweeted or otherwise interacted with The Sun.
That's one example out of many. At one point, I was sent targetted tweets about attending a conference in the USA - I live in the UK.
If they were blindly targeted, it wouldn't feel so offensive.
What on earth does Bush running a company have to do with your article about twitter's advertising practices?
This is the laziest form of writing I can think of and it makes you look juvenile. I have trouble taking anything you say seriously after that sort of nonsense, and I'd suspect that a big chunk of your readers are the same.
--
Okay, you didn't tweet the sun, but you linked to a picture of somebody else who did. I'm sorry I don't know who you are well enough to recognize that handle as not yours.
This is a serious question: how would twitter know what you're interested in? It's not a computational linguistics engine, it's a datastore. Explain to me how you would draw these connections if you had access to all of twitters data.
May I politely suggest you read the article. I am suggesting that Twitter is being run by MBAs and that (some) MBAs are as useless as French Windows on a submarine.
I don't know where you get the impression that I linked to someone who did tweet The Sun. I linked to a screenshot I had taken.
Finally, Twitter is selling itself to advertisers as knowing about its users. If it doesn't, it better get to some of the fancier universities around the world and snap up the computational linguistic majors.
Just as "(some) MBAs are as useless as French Windows on a submarine", so are (some) programmers, and (some) doctors, and (some) <insert profession here>. Did you think that bashing on people with an MBA degree was going to lend credibility to your opinion?
Yes, clearly because I disagree with your premise I haven't read your article. Somehow I magically knew what it was about enough to engage you in a conversation...about an article I didn't read.
>I am suggesting that Twitter is being run by MBAs and that (some) MBAs are [...] useless
Then say that. The pointless jab is just that: pointless.
>it better get to some of the fancier universities around the world and snap up the computational linguistic majors.
If anything, we're just glancing over the dumbness of the point you were making, because when you get past the Bush thing, what's left is a jab at MBA's and a weird equivalence being drawn between MBA's and advertising business models.
What do MBA's even have to do with this situation? Dick Costolo isn't an MBA; he's a UMich CS grad. He's been running tech startups since I was in high school.
You feel offensive, because Twitters' data analysis isn't sophisticated enough to understand your personal interests well enough?
I want to give you my heart felt apologies. I am one of these people responsible, who try their very best to sabotage these profiling systems and putting effort into creating distortion and unrelated data. I hope you can wait a little longer for that day, your when all the ads shown to you are echo-chambering your believe set and reaffirming any (political) biases you have.
It's an interesting double-edged sword. On the one hand, I don't want to see adverts for dog food (not owning a dog), on the other hand, I don't (necessarily) want a company to know that I have a cat.
If a company is going to do advertising - they should do it well.
I'm not sure if you're British, but rejecting The Sun doesn't mean I reject their political viewpoint - it means I reject their sexist, homophobic, lying, and (allegedly) criminal actions.
>If a company is going to do advertising - they should do it well.
You seem convinced that this ad being targeted to you was some massive failure of Twitter's ad product. I am not sure that is the case.
Premium Twitter advertisers (of which the Sun is surely one) have a variety of targeting options that could explain why you saw this ad.
The Sun may have simply targeted all accounts in the UK. Or, they may have targeted accounts that follow other UK publication accounts (it looks like you follow a few Guardian accounts for example).
It is clear that you didn't want to be targeted by The Sun, but that doesn't mean that The Sun didn't want to target you.
Actually it's not interesting; your perspective is merely another instance of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Reasonable minds will differ on the value of a particular perfection/good decision, but it's no sword of innovation.
You're joking right? It's a Sun newspaper, a shitty sensationalist tabloid rag in every country. Other newspapers rely on journalism, they find tits and anger will suffice.
You might as well argue that those who think the Daily Mail is stupid are suppressing free speech and re-enforcing their echo chamber. You would look like just as much of an idiot as you do now.
I find it absolutely ludicrous, that people want to enforce their own value judgment on media, and what they are allowed to report on and on what not.
Nobody forces them to buy the Sun - never the less over two million people buy the paper every day. Are you seriously arguing that a paper that 10% of Britain reads every day should be banned from advertising on Twitter, just because you disagree on their reporting style?
Living in a free society means that you have to tolerate different opinions to your own. Sure, if they break certain laws, go and prosecute them.
People arguing on issues like these based on their personal views are in my opinion no better to these who want to ban porn from the internet, because it their personal value judgment says it is wrong.
> I find it absolutely ludicrous, that people want to enforce their own value judgment on media, and what they are allowed to report on and on what not.
I find it hilarious that you consider what the Sun does to be reporting. Like those hard-hitting journalists at the Weekly World News. How dare I tarnish their sparkling reputation with my disparaging of their highly regarded journalism style.
> Are you seriously arguing that a paper that 10% of Britain reads every day should be banned from advertising on Twitter, just because you disagree on their reporting style?
No, I'm arguing they're an indefensible tabloid rag so aligning yourself with them is risky. Nobody is discussing "banning" except you. I would prefer Twitter doesn't accept their advertising dollars and if I see a Sun ad in any of my clients I'm quitting too.
The number of people who read their idiotic rag is neither here nor there. If you're seriously suggesting that at the very least 10% of any group isn't comprised of borderline retards, then you're delusional.
Using my eyeballs and wallet to vote isn't "banning", it's exactly what I'm supposed to do. Vocalize my concerns, try to get a response, and if they're not receptive, take my business elsewhere.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I'm sorry, if someone tries to argue that the Jersey Shore or Bad Girls Club is quality television, if they try to argue that Katy Perry makes amazing original music, that McDonalds is fine cuisine, or if they claim the Sun does real reporting, I'm going to call them an idiot.
Even if it affects my argument negatively, it has to be said. I'm not just going to let that stand because it's an opinion. It's a painfully ignorant opinion, stemming from the "muddy the waters" argument that has become so popular.
At one point, I was sent targetted tweets about attending a conference in the USA - I live in the UK.
So? I live in Sweden, yet I've attended conferences all over Europe and in Canada. A couple of years ago my girlfriend was in South Africa for a conference. We have these things called airplanes which makes that sort of this quite convenient. If there's an interesting conference in the US then why wouldn't I want to hear about it?
I'm not sure exactly what people are expecting out of Twitter at this point?
Developers were the ONLY victims here. They have a right to be angry. Twitter used them to build their platform and then bought out the bigger companies and said: "We'll take it from here folks". But what did the developers think was going to happen? Twitter's college days are long gone. Twitter needs to make money and take back control of their platform to provide a unified user experience.
The truth is that 99% of the Twitter user base uses it as if nothing has changed. That's because it hasn't. Most people can deal with the occasional ad in their face. No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before. Yet there are complaints that Twitter shows the occasional ad in your stream. So what.
Twitter is still developing and working on useful features (Twitter Cards). Their website is still in the process removing hashbangs, which is making it faster.
So I ask again, what are people expecting out of Twitter at this point?
I think regular users miss out as well. Some of the changes that Twitter introduced were good for normal users (especially about embedded clients) - but I still have tens of thousands of people using my service. Presumably because it offers something which the "official" one doesn't.
I would expect Twitter to try and work with me. Twitter Cards, for example, aren't available through the API.
Why does Twitter need a unified experience? Email doesn't have one. Nor does any other form of communication.
Twitter could have asked us to show their ads, or charged us for API use, or asked for community funding, or any of a hundred different way to keep developers and users happy.
It comes down to respect. They've nothing but contempt for the people who helped them get where they are. And that's sad.
I hear you. Twitter Cards should be available through the API and find a better way to keep developers and their users happy.
As far as the unified experience. I think Google+ is a good example of wanting a unified experience for the end user. As far as I know, they still do not offer a way to post via their API. Meaning, they want to control content creation (clients), but are open to developers using their data in new ways.
Currently, yes. Though I understand recently there was a preview window where some devs were given write access, which I (hopefully correctly) assume to mean that it's coming soonish.
Wait, if screwing over developers doesn't affect 99% of users, what is the point of doing it in the first place. To capture 1% more revenue?
I suspect in reality they expect their change to ultimately affect more than 1% of the user base.
At this point I don't think people expect anything from Twitter. They may not have fully burnt the developer bridge but they are close.
The way forward they chose, building another walled garden, was not the only way forward. It is the least creative and screws over the people that made them successful in the first place.
The ratio of affected users and the profit received from reclaiming the whole platform aren't 1:1. That is to say I'm willing to bet twitter has gained more potential for revenue than 1% more revenue; while affecting 1% of their users.
I imagine slightly more than 1% of the Twitter userbase will certainly be ticked off after their favorite third party client shuts down or removes valued features once the new requirements go into effect. For them something _has_ indeed changed - still a small number, but larger than 1%.
> Twitter is still developing and working on useful features
None of which are supported by the official mobile and desktop clients, if they're available through the API at all. Most of Twitter's extended functionality has come from third party developer involvement.
And what happens when all the developers stop using Twitter and all the Twitter Clients stop working? Twitter doesn't seem interested in keeping their own clients up to date, so where will people go?
Twitter is popular because the developers have made it convenient. When the convenience starts to wain, that 99% will start to drop.
> No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than ever before
Google's ads are not thrown into the middle of the content. On search results they are displayed above and on the side. In GMail they are displayed on a small bar above the main content region. YouTube ads appear before the main feature or as a dismissible popup along the bottom.
What Twitter is doing is more akin to Google inserting an advertisement into the middle of your emails, or pausing a video to randomly throw up a full size banner that can't be dismissed. You bet your ass people would bitch about that!
Google Chrome has 310 million active users (according to Google at their I/O conference in June). In the Chrome Web Store, AdBlock is listed as having 9.3 million users, and Adblock Plus is listed as having 4.9 million users.
Mozilla Firefox had 270 million users in 2009, and presumably has less than Chrome's 310 million now (given their smaller market share). Adblock Plus is listed as having 14 million users on Mozilla Addons.
While it's entire possible (and indeed, likely) that these numbers are not completely accurate, it's also unlikely that they are outside of the ballmark (so to speak). For example, saying that Adblock usage numbers are off by half (that is to say that the usage would be closer to ~30 million than ~15 million), it would still only mean that 10% of Chrome and Firefox users choose to utilize the most popular Adblock choice(s).
It's true that 10% or even 5% of users can be considered "a large portion" (due to the unquantified nature of the statement), but it also would not form a strong basis for confirming the assertion that "No one seems to mind that Google searches contain more ads today than before" (on the basis of Adblock usage by the general population).
wait. the Author's name is Terence Eden, and who is the author of the quote appeared in the text?
"Harvard – one of the most prestigious universities – awarded an MBA to George W Bush. A man many of us wouldn’t trust to sit the right way round on a toilet.
– Terence Eden"
Wow, I haven't never seen someone who is so narcissistic about his own quote before. Don't quote yourself. If you would like to, you may repeat yourself; but don't quote.
Quoting is for referencing somebody else that support the point you are making, possibly from a more credible source than yourself.
>> Twitter needs to make money. For some ridiculous decision, they’ve decided that selling eyeballs to advertisers is the way forward.
>> Twitter decided that they needed to make money. There’s no shame in that. What is shameful is how boring they have been.
At first glance, this attitude strikes me as being naive - however I acknowledge I do not have all the facts.
I do not use Twitter, nor have a I followed their evolution particularly closely. However, I remember reading about them pursuing several different monetization strategies. Can someone comment on why they were abandoned? Were they insufficient or unsustainable?
They do have other ways to make money. Brands can be shown as "recommended followers" to users for a price. Brands can also upgrade their accounts to show a banner of somesort (https://twitter.com/nylabone) and support "sticky tweets". Access to their API in large quantities is a source of revenue (I think). Promoted tweets in a user's stream is another source of revenue.
There may be others, but these are the only ones I'm aware of.
>Harvard – one of the most prestigious universities – awarded an MBA to George W Bush. A man many of us wouldn’t trust to sit the right way round on a toilet.
As a reason not to trust Harvard. The world gets it. Those republicans surrreee are dummies.
/puke
The rest of your article is a bit naive. Computational linguistics is not considered a solved problem yet. Yes, twitter might have 26,000 or some odd tweets from you, but that doesn't mean that they "know" anything about you. It's dumb text.
In fact, now that you've tweeted at the sun newspaper, how is twitter to know that you aren't interested in that newspaper? You're interacting with it, of course you would want to see ads from it, right?
This [meaning targeted advertising] works for facebook (although arguably well since the meme is that facebook ads don't perform) because of the "like" system. I target ads at people who have "liked" things, not at people who have talked about them.