QT: Twitter as Content

by Goldie on November 23, 2009

in quick thoughts,Society and Culture

A friend of mine tweeted about signing up for Ad.ly.  I went over to see what it was. Basically, for a twitterer, you sign up, select what types of ads you approve and once a day it will tweet an ad in your stream and pay you for that tweet. (The example they gave on the about page was a tweet about an episode of a show.)   My first thought was..umm….yeah I don’t think so.  But as I paused to think about it I wondered a bit.

Many people have talked about how they blog less because they tweet.  Tweets aren’t just “I’m having a cup of PG tips right now” (which I am), but are often advice, philosophical thoughts, commentary on something someone found interesting.  In short it is “microblogging” for many.  I don’t have an issue with people having ads on their blog, so why would I have an issue with people having an ad a day on their twitter stream?

I think perhaps there may be two parts.  One is, an ad on blog is separated from the content, and I know it is an ad.  In a twitter stream, given our conventions, it seems like the person is speaking the ad themselves.  The second is a blog seems like it has a potential to be more polished more a “work”, while tweets of 140 seem more casual, and so I run against the “wait you can’t make money for that” bias that is common in our populist movements of the web.

Ultimately, something like ad.ly makes me think.  I haven’t signed up myself, but I think my resistance may be based on old patterns.  When is ok to make money for something?  Is an ad in a tweetstream changing the nature of the medium?  What do you think?

{ 1 comment }

Trinity James May 1, 2010 at 7:17 am

microblogging is really useful when you want to broadcast short updates. i am still leaning towards traditional blogging.”.*

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: