Alright folks, BeTweeted is almost there. A grass-roots effort to begin a new trend of socially responsible advertising on Twitter--a sincere effort to see it monetized without spamming--now ranks number 12 on Google for the keyword "advertise on Twitter." This may seem like an unusual post, but I know so many of the readers are passionate about our mantra... we're asking for some link-juice.

That's right, linkbacks. I've watched with a bit of surprise as Twitter users openly tell their followers "I'm almost to 10,000 followers... can you help me" and loyalists jump right on board. But it's not just about us and our fame. Let me remind you what will happen when an ad service like BeTweeted suddenly finds itself on page 1 of search results:

Nearly 10x the traffic. That's the difference b/w page 1 and page 2. That means 10x more ads for you to tweet (if you're a twitterer). But more importantly, it also means 10x more advertisers getting the message that Twitter is not about SPAM!

So, what can you do? Link to BeTweeted from your own blog, website, facebook page, ning site, or linkedin profile. And, to be more specific, link a keyword-rich string like this: "Advertise on Twitter with BeTweeted."

Labels: Advertise, Blog, Monetize, SEO, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

In a random email this morning, subject line "No question, just comment," Morgan writes:

Just wanted to write and say I think you guys are doing the whole "advertising on twitter" thing right. It's not about spam bots - it's about blogs and other sites paying tweeters and retweeters for doing what they're already doing. Hopefully we can see, through services like yours, a shift from the random spamming on twitter, and annoying banner ads, to really personalized advertising - personalized and personal, unlike Phorm's "personal" ads.

So... yeah. Didn't really have a question, but just kudos.

Well, Morgan, we thank you!

Labels: Affiliate, Monetize, Social Media, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

Ok, we did it. We listened to all the rants about blocking spammers, unfollowing, #spam tags, and all sorts of mass hysteria over the concept of advertising on Twitter. But, we didn't believe you. So, we decided to prove you wrong. And we did it.

What am I talking about? BeTweeted tracked the average follower count of it's advertisers for 3-weeks. We wanted to see if unfollows, #spam hashtags, user blocking, and the like was actually damaging the Advertiser's follower count negatively. And sure enough, nope!

The full release can be found here: Statistics Show Advertising on Twitter has Positive Impact on Follower Counts.

So what does this mean? Is it a license to go spamming away. Not at all. In fact, though the limited statistics we have can't support this, I believe that the reason our advertisers saw such a positive impact is in fact our anti-spam approach. Socially responsible advertising on Twitter is a method that, while seems restrictive, generates higher responses than spam ever could. Try it out. Advertise on Twitter with BeTweeted.

Labels: Advertise, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

So, I won't lie, I found this post through keyword searching on Twitter. On June 3rd, Elizabeth Arlaune (or @JoLoPe) posted a blog article about an informal survey conducted. Intrigued by the Tweet that she used to promote it (irony intended) I indeed clicked the link (a lesson to you betweeted advertisers). Although unscientific, her findings were nonetheless contrary to outspoken opinion and definitely worthy of discussion. You can find the entire blog entry here.

First, the responses to her questions led to some interesting conclusions. First, 90% of her respondents said it was OK to advertise/promote on Twitter. That sure doesn't sound like the tune we've heard louder and louder from social media purists over the past few months. Not only that, but 66% are actually guilty of promotion themselves. Now, this does beg the question, where did she find her sample population? I'm not sure. But, even if slightly skewed, I can't imagine a factor of correction that could negate these stats.

I would, however, have to disagree with one observation made. In considering the data, Elizabeth makes the statement, "EVERYTHING is about promotion." Wait. Stop. Hold the phone. Is that what this data means?

I disagree. I think that it is one thing to say that advertising on Twitter is permissible, even encouraged. However, it's an entirely different matter to say that Twitter is only about advertising. It should be no secret, I use Twitter for promotion. But, I also use it for customer service and response, building relationship with our users, collecting feedback, etc.

No matter how much advertising gets in the mix, Twitter will never be about anything other than relationships. The grievous error, then, is in thinking that relationships cannot exist in the midst of advertising.

Labels: Advertise, Blog, Social Media, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

Jeff Bertolucci published an article on PC World yesterday about Twitter Spam and it's proliferation through technologies as well as the general emphatuation that the world shares with Twitter. I found it to be an interesting and well-written article. If you're interested, you can find it here: Fed Up With Twitter Spam? It’s Going to Get Worse.

In his article, Jeff even cited another source which estimates spam to total about 10% of all the current tweets. The problem is, as Jeff described it, what constitutes spam? You see, everything on Twitter is technically "opt-in." There is no way to send someone a message if they haven't decided to follow you. Perhaps the issue is not with the content, but with the following practices. Auto-followers find themselves, more than anyone else, subject to spam.

What constitutes spam? Is a keyword-targeted @reply considered "spam?" But, in theory, I'm interested in meeting new people on Twitter who are interested in the same topics I am. Is it spam to auto-tweet one's blog articles via RSS reprocessing? But, if I've followed you, why can't you share your blog post with me?

The bottom line is this: it's not the technology used, or even the intent behind tweeting that makes something spam. It's the content and it's relevance to your following. If you're socially responsible--understanding that you tweet your mind--that cannot be spam.

Labels: Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

Our model for providing advertisers a service of spreading a message on Twitter is much like that of a real estate broker. In real estate, you have the challenge of finding both buyers and sellers. You need sellers in order to have inventory to sell. You, of course, need buyers in order to get the property sold and earn your commission. At BeTweeted, we are the brokers between advertisers with a message to share and the Twitterers with the means to share it.

So, the question arises, who is in control? If you've been a BeTweeted user since it's launch last month, you've probably noticed a few small modifications to the system over time--most of which revolve around granting and restricting various controls over the Advertiser's message.

Let me state up front, however, that every measure we've taken has been first in the interest of preventing spam and abuse. That much is obvious. But, there comes a gray area after that. Whose interest should we protect first? The Twitterer or the Advertiser? From a business perspective, one might quickly jump to the Advertisers--those who are spending money with us. But, are the Twitter users not spending just as much? Perhaps not in dollars, but we view their Twitter following as a tremendous hidden value.

To recap, we launched April 29th with the ability for Twitterers to modify the tweet slightly to suit their audience. The resulting abuse, however, forced us to retract that ability in the interest of protecting advertisers. Today, however, we have advertisers who have questioned why every ad must be formatted as a ReTweet. Our "socially responsible" position: because if you're not willing to tweet it yourself, it's not something you should ask others to tweet. The jury is still out on this deliberation.

Where is the line? Who do we protect? Advertisers? Twitterers? Or, even the Twitter users that view our ads? Is it our responsibility, as "socially responsible" brokers of Twitter advertising, to police the spam?

Labels: Advertise, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

If you don't know what I'm talking about when I say "Follow Friday", or #FF, or #FollowFriday, then you haven't been on Twitter in the past 90-days. What began as a nice gesture has grown into an odd form of circular promotion.

Here's what I've observed, tell me if you think these are odd:

• I have received #FollowFriday introductions issued by users who do not even follow the mentioned users themselves.
• I have received ReTweeted #FollowFriday introductions where the re-tweeter does not follow the mentioned users. Instead, I surmise, that they have retweeted the tweet more for the sake of self-advertisement than anything.
  
• I have been given #FollowFriday props from users who have never even @replied me or DM'ed me at all. We effectively have no relationship, yet they picked me. Is this random? Is it based on how many followers I have in an attempt to gain an @reply intro to my own users? At least have the courtesy to advertise on Twitter through BeTweeted (speaking of shameless self-promo, right).
  

I'm beginning to wonder if I should institute something altogether new. Perhaps I'll call it #SinceritySundays for those who I sincerely like. But, alas, if it becomes popularized it well become abused.

Labels: Advertise, Socially Responsible, Twitter

I started using Twitter as a theological blogger. Then, I thought it would be a good idea to bring my marketing business onto Twitter. Of course, that's a different persona altogether. Later, I launched AddressTwo, and a new Twitter username was born. And, of course, most of you know @betweeted_com, which happens to be my fourth Twitter identity.

All of this sounds great at the time, but in the end I'm left with a plethora of problems. I don't have time to be 4 people. I don't remember who I'm friends with under which accounts. Those who know me personally know all of my personalities and are confused by the four distinct Twitter accounts. The list goes on.

Now, of course there are several apps that help with multi account management, but they don't totally eliminate all the problems. So, what IS the best practice?

I've determined the best practice is practice itself. If I set out to be 4 people, understanding that I had 4 legitimately different audiences and messages, then I need to maintain my commitment to be social, engaging, and interesting to all 4 of those followings. I've set aside 1 hour each morning to blog and to tweet. Just one hour. We'll see how it goes.

Labels: Social Media, Socially Responsible, Twitter

We've all experienced this, right? You tweet "i have a headache" and ten seconds later there are 40 @ replies from Tylenol, Excedrin, and some hangover medicine pusher on Twitter. Tweet, "I hate shopping for car insurance" and suddenly you're being followed by 32 new car insurance salesman. How do they do that?

Twitter search has ramped up significantly of recent in terms of it's abilities to find users talking about what you have to sell, your brand, or your target market. Long before that, however, TweetDeck had search windows available that would notify you of new posts on any keyword you desire. Then, when you see a relevant mention... go follow 'em.

Isn't that "dirty?" You may have been hearing bloggers talking nasty stuff about those pesky advertisers out there doing this low-down dirty Twitter practices. Well, I can agree... to an extent. Here's my rules about it:

First, I follow. I don't @reply. But more importantly I follow because, guess what, there's a high likelihood we're interested in the same thing! I'm a Twitter Advertiser, they talk about twitter advertising in their twit stream... HELLO isn't that social?

Second, I don't @reply UNLESS it's warranted. Today, @suzl said "Hi, I'm back, Can anyone tell me how to start to advertise a business on twitter?" Now, you cannot convince me that it's socially irresponsible and "spam" for me to reply to that.

So, you're interested in getting started. I recommend downloading TweetDeck and creating a few relevant searches for your topic. Be social. Be a real human. But don't be afraid to introduce yourself to people who are obviously in to your topic.

Labels: Advertise, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

Ok, all you Twitterers out there, listen up. Whether you're an affiliate guru or just a beginner, these ideas can help you. In a recent article on brand integration, Adage author Larry Dobrow gave a great example of crossing the line of validity when it comes to celebrity endorsement. Bret Michaels apparently gave a plug for how much he likes hanging out at Dave and Busters on the air.

Adage asks (and I echo): seriously? I'm expected to believe that Bret Michaels hangs out at Dave & Busters on a regular basis? This is most certainly not the venue of choice for Hollywood residents.

So, what can you take from this as a Twitter user looking to up your stock and make some dough of our links? Or, any links for that matter--blog sidebar ads, email footer links--anywhere you might hock a product for a referral fee.

It's simple: be real. I see far too often that Twitter users are so eager to make any money they will share any link, whether they believe in the product or not. Around here, I call that bordering very close on the line of spam, if not indeed crossing it. Your followers would agree. In theory, they're clicking links for two reasons: yes, they're intrigued enough by the tweet text to learn more; but also, they are clicking because you said you liked it too!

When you understand this influence you can have, and resolve to use it well: that's socially responsible!

Labels: Advertise, Affiliate, Blog, Monetize, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

For anyone who has been following betweeted for any amount of time, you've probably heard us say that we're anti-spam. We believe that Twitter advertising can be done tastefully, in a not-so-spammy way, and in a way that we call "socially responsible." This morning, I have had it up to here [puts hand near forehead] with people who even abuse our system to facilitate spam.

So, just to let you know we're serious... no, I mean really serious. You're going to start seeing a regular #spammer report from us. You guessed it, this will include our own non-compliant users. No favoritism here. Everyone must play nice on Twitter or its going to be ruined for the rest of us.

Here's the latest spam report.

[should I label this post "sleep-deprived rants"?]

Labels: Advertise, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

Let's block us some spammers. Even though this is just one of a thousand such initiatives like it, I want to get on board with as many as possible. Check the instructions at the IndyAwesome blog and let's make a difference for the sake of Twitter.

Remember our motto: Socially Responsible Advertising on Twitter!

Labels: Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

Over a month ago, Robin Grant quoted himself (yeah, seriously) in his own blog article entitled, "Should you Advertise in Twitter streams?" He went down on record (again, by his own self quotation) as saying "Twitter is all about conversations and what these ad networks are trying to do is insert ads into that conversation stream which is inherently inappropriate."

What a joy to know that we launched on April 28th, after Grant's inclusive statement about "these" ad networks, and so we can rest assured that he was not referring to BeTweeted. Ok, so maybe that's a bit legalistic.

In all seriousness, despite my jabs at the article, I want to go on record as agreeing with Robin. In fact, I think I should quote myself as such. "I think Twitter should be all about conversation."--Nick Carter.

Now, I do want to add to that quote, however. I think Twitter should be all about conversation... and so Twitter Advertising should be conversational. There seems to be a misconception that the presence of compensation is mutually exclusive with the presence of real content. I disagree. I think there is a distinction between spam and decent advertising on Twitter. And, yes, the latter can exist.

Labels: Advertise, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

I had a great conversation today with a very "social media" savvy would-be advertiser on BeTweeted. The major concern, both from this person and in the minds of many people looking to leverage the power of Twitter for their businesses, is the potential back-lash of being "discovered" as a Twitter advertiser. Could the mere fact that your company advertisers on Twitter actually reflect negatively on your brand? We surely think not, but let's explore the ins-and-outs.

With such a rage building in the community of social media users over the influx of spam, it's reasonable to fear that as an advertiser on Twitter your company's name may be some how, rightly or wrongly, lumped in with this category. Like having your name in the rolodex of Heidi Fleiss when it all goes public. What stigma would you have to bear if the world found out you were among the list of those who paid to leverage Twitter for business gain?

Herein is where the concern becomes paranoia. The fact is, such a great majority of Twitter users are indeed using it for business gain, it can hardly be said that this is a shunned use... even to the most die-hard of social media purists. So, what is it that does bear a stigma? What is the "shunned" use. It's important to understand what is really mean by the term spam. Spam is the abuse of Twitter. It's intrusive commercial messaging with no value to the social cloud that is the twittosphere. Most often, it's done obnoxiously and shamelessly.

But, what if you were "advertising" content on Twitter that was creative, interesting, compelling, or just plain helpful. What if you, as a company, really felt that (as you indeed should) your product was of benefit to those who found out about it. Then, you asked some high-powered Twitter users to look at it first, see if they agreed, and if they indeed did, introduce you to a few of their friends. Does the mere fact that these Twitterers can earn affiliate revenue for such an introduction make you a spammer? We certainly don't think so.

I get a referral fee whenever I send my Realtor new business. I get a store credit for bringing friends to my favorite coffee shop. I get cold cash when people buy a book from Amazon that I recommended in my blog. For that reason, do you not want to meet my realtor? Do you think the coffee shop really isn't my favorite one and that I'm lying just to get some free joe? Do you honestly believe that the book must truly suck and that I'm only hocking it for the measly 73 cents I might make. C'mon! Seriously!

My friend, that is NOT spam. It's a little refreshing, kinda, isn't it? Welcome to what we love to call "socially responsible" advertising on Twitter!

Labels: Advertise, Social Media, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

When I was in high school, there was a kid who would do anything for money--or attention, really, but the dares usually began with some promise of money. He once licked a public toilet seat for $20. Yeah! Now, after you've finished losing your lunch, I really do intend to relate this little allegory to marketing principals and how ads are treated on Twitter.

You see, Andy (that was his name) could have probably made a decent living the rest of his life by making an imbecile of himself for cash. At just three random dares a day, $20 each, he's pulling home $1,800 a month as a 12-year old. In fact, for all I know, that's just what he did. But, I bet he would have gotten more sophisticated. Contracts may be tighter today, and instead of licking toilet seats for the on-lookers' entertainment value, he may have sold his friends' email addresses to the top bidder and, yes, his Twitter followers, too.

A Twitterer DM'ed me today and asked what prevents our users from tweeting the same advertiser's link more than once to increase their clicks. "A few people do just that," I told him, "but the reason most don't is the same reason most wouldn't walk the streets with a sandwich board on: DIGNITY." (yes, I know, that's more than 140 characters... I edited here for grammar).

The point is this, as sure as social media marketing is here to stay, so are the spammers--the one's without dignity or social responsibility--who will indeed abuse their rights until some measures are taken to block them. I, for one, am in fact excited that at least on Twitter, blocking such advertisers is easier than with other media like email, snail mail, or even Facebook. Unfollow!

Labels: Advertise, Social Media, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

Oprah said the word and Twitter became an overnight sensation. Ok, sure, it was pretty darn popular even without that, but her endorsement was certainly a landmark in Twitter's growth. So, now you're wondering if you can use Twitter to build your blog traffic, website traffic, or just plain advertise your company. Is it worth it? Is Twitter just a fad, or will it really benefit my brand?

There are few qualifiers that I must give before announcing my resounding, "Yes!" First, Twitter advertising is not going to perform the same way traditional banner advertising performs--at least, not for long. This is social media advertising, not a "push media." So, your budget and goals should take into consideration the fact that, if you pay to advertise on Twitter, you're paying to increase your social footprint.

I can't deny that applying traditional CPM advertising principals to Twitter could have positive impact on your branding efforts, but I want to suggest that there's a better way to think of it. Successful marketing strategies that include Twitter revolve around the concept of building a following, becoming social, and engaging your target audience. That's what BeTweeted is designed to help you do.

So, if you're not yet ready to embrace this new paradigm in online marketing, then I would actually be inclined to join the rest of the purists and say: keep your spam off twitter, please. But, if you get social media marketing and you're ready to use Twitter advertising as a socially responsible medium in your overall marketing mix, then you get my resounding, "Yes!" Advertise on Twitter with BeTweeted.

Labels: Advertise, Social Media, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

With a title like that, oh my, I bet this article get's dugg by 10 different people. Of course, each will claim it's a unique submission and I won't get the valuable benefits of being dugg 10 times. Curse that blasted interface. .... I digress.

Seriously, though, how many articles can we possibly need about monetizing. Is that even a word? My spell check keeps giving it the dreaded red-squiggly, which is a sure sign we're using flat-out jargon that is doomed to be either forgotten entirely or parodied relentlessly. That is why I've decided to give my top ten articles on how NOT to monetize your Twitter account. Enjoy.

1. Thou shalt not (yes, I think this will be a fun thematic style to continue, don't you) place ads in your Twitter background that can't be clicked on anyway. What's up with that?
2. Thou shalt not include links to your own products in an Auto-DM on follow. I open my outlook in the morning and immediately sort all DM's in my inbox... shift+delete.
   
3. Thou shalt not tweet the same paid link multiple times just because people didn't click it the first time. "Buy from me. No seriously, buy from me. Hey did you hear me say 'buy from me?'"
   
4. Thou shalt not subject your twitter followers to an advertiser's link without first visiting the link yourself... and, yes, considering the relevancy of its content to your followers.
5. Thou shalt not take Twitter's name in vain. I've clicked far too many links to products where people want to get paid for teaching you how to monetize your twitter profile. Absurd. I think so.
6. Thou shalt not sell your following to the highest bidder [clears throat] not to name any names.
7. Thou shalt not allow some advertising bot to place links to content in your tweet stream automatically (see number 4).
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness (yes, it's getting deeper) on behalf of an advertiser, no matter how much they pay you. If you don't use their product, don't say you do!
9. Thou shalt not tweet more than 1 in every 5 tweets that are advertising or promotional.
10. Thou shalt not @reply unaffiliated names in your advertising tweet for the mere sake of implying their endorsement, affiliation, or otherwise increase credibility.
    

Labels: Advertise, Monetize, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

Anymore, the two terms seem almost synonymous: Advertise and Spam. But, as I recently commented on a TechCruch article about be-a-magpie advertising, spam-like services such as be-a-magpie were the inspiration for our Twitter ad network, BeTweeted. And, as we spread the word surrounding our launch last Wednesday, it seemed that nobody bought it at first. Several bloggers saw the press release as fodder for yet another rant on keeping Twitter pure.

Today, however, I want to thank Jimmy Rogers for his honest assessments and "fair shake" attitude that resulted in a blog review which accurately reflects our heart for Twitter advertising. I will thank Jimmy with a very keyword rich backlink to his own blog, the highest honor any blogger can bestow upon another blogger. So, here goes: Betweeted Brings Ads to Twitter Without Spamming.

"Inspired by Beamagpie, it has a similar interface, but the ad structure and syntax is different. When real users want to advertise something, they use a retweet."

Nailed it, Jimmy. Kudos.

Labels: Advertise, Socially Responsible, Spam, Twitter

It seems that since the dawn of communication, every new media is eventually leveraged for personal gain--what many call advertising or marketing. With print came print ads and brochures. With phones came telemarketing. With email came spam. With social media... well, more spam. Is the presence of an advertisement inherently evil? Is it the practice of using a phone for sales that is wrong, or the abuse of it? Likewise, is a promotional link in the twitter stream wrong, or is it the abuse that's wrong?

There are a great many purists out there that believe social media venues like Twitter and Facebook should remain unadulterated by advertising, sponsored links, and the like. Just read the heated comment stream that ensued when Kyle Lacy blogged about BeTweeted's service to advertise on Twitter. But the extreme view, that inserting promotional links on Twitter should be altogether banned, is simply not a plausible outcome in the reality that we live in.

The question then becomes, how can it be done responsibly? I have come to the sad realization that the abusers are going to abuse. They're the same types of people that were the first to invent automatic dialers in the 70's and the first to purchase email list in the 90's. But what about the companies looking to advertise in a responsible way? Those who advocated no call lists and can-spam acts--the companies I call "socially responsible" yet still realize that they need to leverage every media to market their businesses--how can they use Twitter to advertise?

BeTweeted is billed as "socially responsible" advertising on Twitter. Here's what we mean by that:

• No links are ever auto-tweeted into the stream.
  
• Every Twitterer should preview the content before recommending it to their followers.
• Advertisers should be incentivized to deliver valuable content, not spam, by realizing that Twitterers have the option to say "no" to their links.
• Advertisers should be require to be active on Twitter, including their own username in the tweet, so they can engage their audience as social media enables, not merely push messaging as antiquated marketing principals advocated.

This is my heart for marketing in a social media age. There are those that oppose me. There always will be. However, I will resolve to not forget the practices which I oppose and to not build a technology that enables them.

Labels: Advertise, Social Media, Socially Responsible, Twitter