TWITTER / TASKS
24 November 2009
Here's a question: when is a social media influencer not an influence?
- Media Type
- Advertiser-Funded Programming
- Social Media
- Product Category
- Media & Publishing
- Source
- News
- Tags
- Social Networking
- Social Media
Following a piece in the New York Times (http://bit.ly/7dNiT5) about blogger John Chow receiving $200 dollars for punting details of where to buy M&Ms
with customised messages and faces to his 50,000 followers, debate has
been hotting up about brands which pay people who are apparently
popular on Twitter. While Chow has been celebrating his $3000 income in
October from the social network 'for pushing a button', questions are
being asked about the ethics of manipulating a peer to peer service in
this way.
This is an extension of the debate which has surrounded bloggers which get paid for mentioning particular brands: if the blogger is upfront about their arrangement and is still a respected voice within a particular community, saying what he or she truly thinks, that's one thing. But when this transaction goes on behind the scenes, with bloggers being pressured into using their influence to endorse a product they don't especially like or wouldn't otherwise recommend, it's another issue entirely.
Back to Twitter. Social networking influencers and celebrities can sign up through a service us as Ad.ly (http://ad.ly) 'connecting top tier twitterers with top tier brands' or Izea (http://izea.com) 'world leader in sponsored conversations' to start cashing in by temporarily handing over their account to a brand. While spam is very much not what such services are going for, the apparent callousness of the transaction could cause problems.
People are pretty good at ignoring things that don't interest them, whether on Twitter or in the wider world. People are followed on Twitter based on how interesting and relevant what they have to say is to the follower - sure, every so often people will tweet random bits of nonsense, and if that includes irrelevant ads, then it could be ignored.
And if the nonsense gets too overwhelming then unfollow is only a quick click away.
A trusted recommendation or a word of mouth opinion can quickly loose credibility amongst followers if they are aware that there is a financial incentive behind it. This isn't as altruistic as an organisation of brand advocates, such as method's or P&G's Vocal Point, where people taking part already have an interest in the brand and have been contributing by offering opinions new product development and marketing campaigns.
Perhaps the biggest challenge is for brands to make sure that the person tweeting on their behalf has a relevant audience, which might benefit from hearing about a particular brand. For example, Amazon has announced that it will start paying users who are signed up to its Amazon Associates programme and who subsequently tweet about the brand. A link to a product that users think is great is almost expected.
Smart marketers are constantly attempting to create conversations between consumers and brands. But, if brands are strong enough in their own right, and resonate among their target markets, those conversations will be occurring anyway. It's up to the brand to stay in the conversation, not to delegate this task.
This is an extension of the debate which has surrounded bloggers which get paid for mentioning particular brands: if the blogger is upfront about their arrangement and is still a respected voice within a particular community, saying what he or she truly thinks, that's one thing. But when this transaction goes on behind the scenes, with bloggers being pressured into using their influence to endorse a product they don't especially like or wouldn't otherwise recommend, it's another issue entirely.
Back to Twitter. Social networking influencers and celebrities can sign up through a service us as Ad.ly (http://ad.ly) 'connecting top tier twitterers with top tier brands' or Izea (http://izea.com) 'world leader in sponsored conversations' to start cashing in by temporarily handing over their account to a brand. While spam is very much not what such services are going for, the apparent callousness of the transaction could cause problems.
People are pretty good at ignoring things that don't interest them, whether on Twitter or in the wider world. People are followed on Twitter based on how interesting and relevant what they have to say is to the follower - sure, every so often people will tweet random bits of nonsense, and if that includes irrelevant ads, then it could be ignored.
And if the nonsense gets too overwhelming then unfollow is only a quick click away.
A trusted recommendation or a word of mouth opinion can quickly loose credibility amongst followers if they are aware that there is a financial incentive behind it. This isn't as altruistic as an organisation of brand advocates, such as method's or P&G's Vocal Point, where people taking part already have an interest in the brand and have been contributing by offering opinions new product development and marketing campaigns.
Perhaps the biggest challenge is for brands to make sure that the person tweeting on their behalf has a relevant audience, which might benefit from hearing about a particular brand. For example, Amazon has announced that it will start paying users who are signed up to its Amazon Associates programme and who subsequently tweet about the brand. A link to a product that users think is great is almost expected.
Smart marketers are constantly attempting to create conversations between consumers and brands. But, if brands are strong enough in their own right, and resonate among their target markets, those conversations will be occurring anyway. It's up to the brand to stay in the conversation, not to delegate this task.
Weekly Newsletter /
Most Contagious /
COMMENTS /