6 ms·

Advertising makes money when the audience has intent. People search google for "Best washing machine". Google shows them adverts for washing machines, customer

Advertising makes money when the audience has intent. People search google for "Best washing machine". Google shows them adverts for washing machines, customer buys washing machine. Where is the intent on twitter? To gossip? I just don't see it. If someone is about to buy something, they're likely to go to google and search. They're not likely to go to twitter. Google gets them at the crucial point before they buy something.

Cthulhu_ 13y ago
"I just bought a #WashingMachine from @SomeWebshop for #cheap, #omg!!111#one~!", where @SomeWebshop paid Twitter to have positive-sounding tweets for SomeWebshop appear more prominently on the #washingmachine hashtag and elsewhere. (disclaimer: I don't know twitter and never got into it.)
austenallred 13y ago
Advertising makes more money when the audience has intent. That's why a google click for someone who is searching for "mesothelioma" costs $130, and why Google makes money faster than it can spend it. But what if no one is looking for you? What if you are trying to gain new audiences? There's still plenty of money to be made there. Maybe not Google money, but enough to build a company that's worth tens or perhaps eventually hundreds of billions of dollars. Reputable sources (http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/03/27/report-twitter-to-hit-1-billion-in-ad-revenues-next-year/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/03/27/report-twit...) have Twitter's estimated revenue to be at $1 Billion next year. And the monetization is just getting started.
joshma 13y ago
Secondary to intent, but still pretty valuable, is interest. With Twitter, interest is VERY clear. If you want to target web developers, or fashion lovers, or car enthusiasts, you just have to look at who they follow to figure it out.
debt 13y ago
One of these companies(FB, twitter, YELP, Goog, etc) is going to rethink and reinvent advertising. All these companies use old models on the web(playing an ad before a video like tv, banner ads are like magazine or classifieds ads). That's kind of the name of the game. "How can we show people ads in a new way that integrates seamlessly with their experience?" What if Twitter found a way to do it? Facebook seems to be getting the hang of it with their newsfeed ads.
- kybernetyk 13y ago
  > "How can we show people ads in a new way that integrates seamlessly with their experience?" Imho Google does this pretty well with Adwords (those that you see in the search results).
- julespitt 13y ago
  Is this where I can complain about Twitters Ad API still not being available to the general public? You can build some amazing tools with the APIs Google and Facebook give you, but Twitter is off-limits unless you're an invited partner, of which there are only a handful (I think.) They seem a little too content to keep it restricted. And to at least make my missive vaguely related to your post - surely they'd get a lot of interesting ideas on how to revolutionize advertising if they allowed open experimentation.
jusben1369 13y ago
I think this also shows a somewhat limited understanding of Twitter and solely puts it in the "passive" mode. I'll actively search on Twitter for topics of interest to me to see what people are saying on topics.
hdctambien 13y ago
> Advertising makes money when the audience has intent. That's why nobody advertises on television. When I watch TV, my intent is to see what antics the Simpsons are up to this week, not to go to Best Buy and trade my cellphone in for a newer version or buy a Coke or go to a movie theater an watch a Seth Rogen movie.
- chaz 13y ago
  > That's why nobody advertises on television. Companies spent $140 billion in advertising on US TV in 2012, up 3% from 2011. TV is about brand and awareness, not direct response.
  - panacea 13y ago
    He was obviously being sarcastic.
    - chaz 13y ago
      I know. I was supporting his point. Massive industry. Hoping to see more brand dollars shift toward online.
      - nazgulnarsil 13y ago
        I think the idea that twitter will follow more of a TV strategy than a google strategy is good one. Twitter is obviously a platform ideal for kicking entertaining content at users to keep your brand relevant and with positive affect in their mind.
wpietri 13y ago
What's the intent of people watching television or reading newspapers? Ads were a distraction, but people never minded too much. And advertisers were happy, because they got enough people with intent to make it worth their while. Twitter may not have direct understanding of intent, but they are pretty good at knowing interest, which is sufficiently correlated with intent to make advertisers happy.
bigtones 13y ago
Who you follow on twitter shows intent far more than liking a page on Facebook.
moskie 13y ago
Google (or all search engines, i guess, but who are we kidding) is pretty much the only example of the situation you describe. All other advertising that exists, or has existed, doesn't work like that, yet is supposedly successful.
Tsagadai 13y ago
Twitter has a search box too. Many people who use twitter use twitter's search for current events before google's. There are more things that people search for than just what to buy.
- dudus 13y ago
  But maybe that's what sell ads.

Cthulhu_ 13y ago

"I just bought a #WashingMachine from @SomeWebshop for #cheap, #omg!!111#one~!", where @SomeWebshop paid Twitter to have positive-sounding tweets for SomeWebshop appear more prominently on the #washingmachine hashtag and elsewhere. (disclaimer: I don't know twitter and never got into it.)

austenallred 13y ago

Advertising makes more money when the audience has intent. That's why a google click for someone who is searching for "mesothelioma" costs $130, and why Google makes money faster than it can spend it. But what if no one is looking for you? What if you are trying to gain new audiences? There's still plenty of money to be made there. Maybe not Google money, but enough to build a company that's worth tens or perhaps eventually hundreds of billions of dollars. Reputable sources (http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/03/27/report-twitter-to-hit-1-billion-in-ad-revenues-next-year/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/03/27/report-twit...) have Twitter's estimated revenue to be at $1 Billion next year. And the monetization is just getting started.

joshma 13y ago

Secondary to intent, but still pretty valuable, is interest. With Twitter, interest is VERY clear. If you want to target web developers, or fashion lovers, or car enthusiasts, you just have to look at who they follow to figure it out.

debt 13y ago

One of these companies(FB, twitter, YELP, Goog, etc) is going to rethink and reinvent advertising. All these companies use old models on the web(playing an ad before a video like tv, banner ads are like magazine or classifieds ads). That's kind of the name of the game. "How can we show people ads in a new way that integrates seamlessly with their experience?" What if Twitter found a way to do it? Facebook seems to be getting the hang of it with their newsfeed ads.

kybernetyk 13y ago
> "How can we show people ads in a new way that integrates seamlessly with their experience?" Imho Google does this pretty well with Adwords (those that you see in the search results).
julespitt 13y ago
Is this where I can complain about Twitters Ad API still not being available to the general public? You can build some amazing tools with the APIs Google and Facebook give you, but Twitter is off-limits unless you're an invited partner, of which there are only a handful (I think.) They seem a little too content to keep it restricted. And to at least make my missive vaguely related to your post - surely they'd get a lot of interesting ideas on how to revolutionize advertising if they allowed open experimentation.

jusben1369 13y ago

I think this also shows a somewhat limited understanding of Twitter and solely puts it in the "passive" mode. I'll actively search on Twitter for topics of interest to me to see what people are saying on topics.

hdctambien 13y ago

> Advertising makes money when the audience has intent. That's why nobody advertises on television. When I watch TV, my intent is to see what antics the Simpsons are up to this week, not to go to Best Buy and trade my cellphone in for a newer version or buy a Coke or go to a movie theater an watch a Seth Rogen movie.

chaz 13y ago
> That's why nobody advertises on television. Companies spent $140 billion in advertising on US TV in 2012, up 3% from 2011. TV is about brand and awareness, not direct response.
- panacea 13y ago
  He was obviously being sarcastic.
  - chaz 13y ago
    I know. I was supporting his point. Massive industry. Hoping to see more brand dollars shift toward online.
    - nazgulnarsil 13y ago
      I think the idea that twitter will follow more of a TV strategy than a google strategy is good one. Twitter is obviously a platform ideal for kicking entertaining content at users to keep your brand relevant and with positive affect in their mind.

wpietri 13y ago

What's the intent of people watching television or reading newspapers? Ads were a distraction, but people never minded too much. And advertisers were happy, because they got enough people with intent to make it worth their while. Twitter may not have direct understanding of intent, but they are pretty good at knowing interest, which is sufficiently correlated with intent to make advertisers happy.

bigtones 13y ago

Who you follow on twitter shows intent far more than liking a page on Facebook.

moskie 13y ago

Google (or all search engines, i guess, but who are we kidding) is pretty much the only example of the situation you describe. All other advertising that exists, or has existed, doesn't work like that, yet is supposedly successful.

Tsagadai 13y ago

Twitter has a search box too. Many people who use twitter use twitter's search for current events before google's. There are more things that people search for than just what to buy.

dudus 13y ago
But maybe that's what sell ads.