Why yes it was an add. Did you notice?
Yep, I got paid to have this ad run in my Twitter feed one time.
A company called Ad.ly approached me about signing up to have these ads run in my feed. After reading an article in Time Magazine about “Sponsored Tweets” about what Ted Murphy at Izea was doing, I thought why not?
Am I sell out? Am I going against everything that Twitter is about? Will you stop following people who do it? I am very curious what you guys think about it. I have already been approached to do it again.
Here is the Ad:
Oh and it seems celebrities are doing it as well. Here look:
Now you might have noticed the (ad) at the end of the tweet. That is so people, who pay attention notice that it is an ad, not my tweet. Though I wonder how many people notice.
These are the celebs that have signed up to be part of it with Ad.ly:
Is this the sign of things to come?
Oh and Steve Coulson, remember about 2 years ago for an April Fools Joke, you pranked everyone with a company that would pay for tweets? It has become a reality….
Posted under Blog
This post was written by davepeck on October 12, 2009
It's a tough discussion, every time. The thing is, everyone has a different line of what is acceptable when it comes to sponsored tweets.
My opinion on this specific tweet, I don't like it. You have the option (usually) to change the text in the sponsored tweet. I would have liked to see you share your honest opinion of the movie rather than just saying exactly what they told you to say.
I think this is misleading, because as a long time follower of yours (pretty much since I joined twitter), I have grown to trust the content that you share. I trust what you write whether or not it's sponsored. If I just saw your tweet, I would have trusted that it was your honest opinion. I would have trusted that it was your words. Seeing it in this post that other celebrities tweeted the same exact thing tells me that it wasn't your words.
I would have been mislead. I would have lost trust.
So I guess my line with sponsored tweets, is if you're posting a tweet that's sponsored, I still expect it to be your honest opinion. Otherwise, you lose credibility.
It's a bit different for celebrities. I feel like they aren't held to the same standards as they always sell themselves out for products. Probably has something to do with the level of trust I have in someone like you compared to the amount of trust I have for a celebrity.
The only way this model works is if you trust the end user to be creative and actually invite their followers (read audience) to engage in an open dialogue with them. As David points out a scripted entry really is what under cuts this idea.
Plain and simple: You're a whore, and I'm not a john.
Instant drop.
Good indicator of how acceptable this is: the "celebs" you cite as having signed up are at best legends in their own minds who pay for their occasional mentions on TMZ.
Oh, and "add" means to increase, "ad" is short for advertisement. Ironic really, since your "ad" decreases your credibility… and your followers.
David good insights into the different standards
You may be right Patrick, the fact that it is not written by the person could cause a problem
yes, I remember the April Fools. Pretty prescient. Here's the link to it from over two years ago: http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2007/04/ge...
IDK, David… I look at it this way. Remember when your mother told you that you’re judged by the company you keep? Well, if the ad is relevant to the company you keep and you’re open about the fact that it is an ad, then why not. But I would keep it to a minimum. Remember the statistic about tweets… you can include a self-promotional type tweet after every 10 or 12 non self-promotional tweets. I think that rule applies here too. You don’t want to be the online equivalent of the folks who stand on street corners wearing signs and handing out coupons advertising the latest specials at “joe’s shoe outlet".
I tend to not like it, but can see where it could be ok. In my opinion, it's ONLY ok (and I'm still not sold on this yet) if it's for something I've already used/seen/would tweet about anyway–that way credibility isn't an issue…but then again once you start adding money to things, they line becomes blurry by nature…it's a tough call.
I think this is a great idea. I've long since believed that our space is our space – http://tinyurl.com/pygy23 regardless of whether we are using it for free or not. Until they take away what we can and can't say here, everything's game. If you fully endorse something, you tweet about it anyway. When people start tweeting on behalf of Cialis, they'll get unfollowed. And that's the beauty of Social Media – it's it's own filter. I don't believe there's *that* much loyalty here. ~ @smashadv
(oh, and OpenId sucks by the way)
I agree with Jason and Joan. I think that it might be ok, like almost anything, in moderation. Credibility is important.So is integrity. As long as you make that a priority,I think its ok to test the waters.
I once made a mistake and DM'd all my followers while teaching my 12 year old how to play a twitter related mob app. I am still paying for that mistake…
I agree with David's comments. I would have lost trust too. I don't think I would have dropped you, but like all things – I see this getting so out of hand. The day I log in and everyone is tweeting the exact same message ad, is prob the day I'll leave Twitter.
Frankly, I dread the day when advertising runs rampant on Twitter. On the other hand, it will make it much simpler to choose who to follow and who not … if you're running a steady stream of ads, you're dropped. The group of celebs you've indicated are diving into this are for the most part one sad bunch of losers. At least youve made it easy for me to decide not to follow you on Twitter.
BTW, DID you find the trailer hilarious? Just wondering if you at least agreed with the ad. I thought it looked like just another in a long line of unfunny Hollywood "comedies."