July 12th, 2009
Twitter has gained widespread recognition from media outlets, celebrities and brands among others. There are certain brands that already have a well-known presence on Twitter like @WholeFoods , @JetBlue , and @Starbucks. Now because of the exposure more brands find value in this “social network” but don’t know how to go about utilizing social media tools.
Some have resorted to buying Twitter followers. Some have enlisted Twitterers to get paid for their tweets with Magpie and Adjix. The latest to throw their hat in this ring is Ted Murphy and IZEA with @Spontwts.
@Spontwts is a program where you can signup to allow advertisers to pitch you offers for you to tweet. I learned about this from a tweet from @tedmurphy which said that a celebrity made $2,500 from a single sponsored tweet.
Danny Brown wrote up an article about this. He’s “neither here nor there on the topic as long as it’s handled properly.” I tend to agree with him. Promoting something is generally neutral. How it’s done is what sets it apart.
People generally are adverse to this because of Magpie. Magpie promoted itself in an invasive manner, Any message that doesn’t take your target audience into account can run afoul of them. No one wants to see a blatantly promotional ad for a service that has nothing to do with your or their interests. That’s where Magpie went wrong. This is where Spontwts can benefit.
People want relevance. As long as the advertisers you choose align with what you already consume and subscribe to there should be no problem. I personally promote Mountain Dew on Twitter (@mtn_dew) whenever it’s naturally possible. That’s the key: NATURALLY possible.
I enjoy Mountain Dew in my life & I share my experiences with the brand on Twitter often. I can guarantee you that some of my followers do NOT share my passion for Mountain Dew, yet they accpt it /enjoy it/ engage with me on it. Why? Because I have PASSION for it. Regardless of what it is, they see that I’m genuine about it and THAT is why it works.
Spontwts is about how you use it. If a user accepts any and all offers from advertisers the service becomes a firehose. ANYTHING is a nuisance when used that way. It’s all about timing, relevancy and precision.
The brands you subscribe to and promote become part of your brand. The more value you provide through sharing & helping the more people are willing to ‘buy’ what you are ‘selling’. Tip the balance too much one way, you become an annoying shill.
Curating their users, advertisers, and tweet frequency/volume will ultimately make or break their service. Some on Twitter go for quantity, others, quality. Only a select few go for quantity of quality.
A couple of items of note:
- Sponsored Tweets only allows you to choose one category from a select sample: Business/Finance, Entertainment, Family, Food, General, Health, Marketing, Technology, Travel.
- You can further specify what types of offers you want to receive by tagging your profile with up to 10 keywords.
- Notification by e-mail or DM but not both.
- Either you or the advertiser can write the tweet (not sure if you can change their writing after the fact).
- There is a pre-set ‘Charge per tweet’ and ‘Charge per click’ that you can change, yet no formula is given to give you scope to gauge it on.
- A ‘Content rating’ area is also available for you to rate your tweets (Everyone, Mature, Adults-only), although if you’re like me, tweets can be all over the board.
One clarification provided by IZEA:
Sponsored Tweets will not auto inject ads into your stream. Each tweet must be approved by you before it gets released. Our goal is to provide you with quality ads that you are comfortable with.
Some final thoughts:
Sponsored Tweets add #spon onto the end as to distinguish that it’s a sponsored tweet. IZEA is also working out some technical issues like sponsored tweet DMs being truncated, thus cutting off vital information from advertisers.
Overall I believe that Ted Murphy and IZEA is onto something here. When you are allowed to preselect your content for your intended audience the ultimate onus falls on you as the selector. This is what sets apart a quality Twitter account from a spammy one and every shade of grey in between.

As I have used Twitterfeed to inject some of the best content I have preselected from the web, so will I try out Sponsored Tweets to see if the advertisers and quality are up to my followers’ standards. I have faith in the community that I have built to tell me if it works for them or not, and I in turn will process that information and act on it.
Trust is gained over time and destroyed in a moment. Be careful with it. It is best to use a scalpel not a machete when dealing with trust concerns and your brand.
Tags: advertisers, benefit, brand, branding, business, celeb, celebrities, consumer, consumers, core values, danny brown, experiment, feelings, follower, followers, frien, friends, functionality, goals, instances, interactions, invasive manner, jetblue, magpie, marketing, media outlets, media tools, mountain dew, network, networking, presence, relevance, selling, social media, starbucks, target audience, technology, ted murphy, tweet, tweets, twitter, Value
Posted in branding, featured, life, social media | 1 Comment »
May 22nd, 2009
Is the web 2.0 bubble balloon slowly deflating?
Recently Meg Pickard released an updated version of the now infamous Web 2.0 image map. This new map breaks down who is dead, acquired and alive (X, O, and no mark, respectively)

Kevin Eklund’s statistical analysis of the chart:
Web 2.0: Project or Business?
Mashable touted all those on the list (survivors included) as a testament to those willing to do rather than watch. While I tend to agree with Mashable and others concerning the survival/success rate of Web 2.0 businesses, no one is asking the important question. Only Doug Martin begins to touch upon it:
I created one of the projects Xed out on the first chart. Looking back it was a project and not a business – I got coverage on all the hot tech blogs and the associated huge spike in traffic but there really was not a business there. It did help me get my next job though and it was a fun ride.
Many Web 2.0 companies start out with a great idea, ambition and a rush to get it first to market. The problem with that is when you think like a designer or a developer you get those results. A businessman thinks of the bottom line: money.
Amazing ideas are all well and good but if you don’t have a proper monetization model in place before you launch you are setting yourself up for disaster. You also need short & long term road maps and an exit strategy. Core values and belief systems MUST be set up before you can start doing business. Crawl, walk, run, fly.
I’m not interested in a failure rate or what that means for a new web industry. What I am interested in is why. Why did these companies fold? Why are some still around? Why did some get acquired? Rates mean nothing without reason behind them.
Web You.0
Meg Pickard is at least asking one question, a question about creating a new roadmap:
“If anyone would like to make a new collage of startups in this genre for 2009, I’d be very interested to see it – please post the link in the comments. Here’s the collage above, but with all the defunct companies removed. There are plenty of healthy and exciting companies around these days which could fill those empty spaces. Who’ll take on the task of filling the gaps?”

I propose not just a new update to the Web 2.0 map but a new way to organize it as well.
- Create a maximum uniform height and width for logos.
- Separate into color groups according to what their primary service is (sharing, storage etc).
- Make each logo into an actual clickable image map that links out to each service.
- Show how the social networking services are linked together i.e. Twitter > Facebook > Friendfeed <->Twitter
- Repeat for a Web 3.0 (aka Semantic Web) map
- Tie both the Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 map together in parallel linked maps
Just remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Also, Rome is just a city now instead of an empire. Think about that.
Tags: ambition, belief systems, beliefs, blog, brand, branding, business, businessman, chart web, collage, colors, commenters, communications, core values, design, designers, doug martin, eklund, excitement, exit strategy, experiment, Facebook, failure, failure rate, Friendfeed, fun ride, functionality, grouping, image map, interactions, lists, marketing, mashable, models, network, networked, networking, one question, organization, road maps, roadmap, social, social media, startups, statistical analysis, statistics, strategy, success rate, tech, technology, twitter, update, Value, web industry
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »
May 20th, 2009
I usually don’t reblog anything but sometimes I come across something that is so on point that there’s no need for me to say it any other way. The following about core values is from the United States government National Park Service training website:
What are Core Values?
The core values of an organization are those values we hold which form the foundation on which we perform work and conduct ourselves. We have an entire universe of values, but some of them are so primary, so important to us that through out the changes in society, government, politics, and technology they are STILL the core values we will abide by.
In an ever-changing world, core values are constant. Core values are not descriptions of the work we do or the strategies we employ to accomplish our mission. The values underlie our work, how interact with each other, and which strategies we employ to fulfill our mission. The core values are the basic elements of how we go about our work. They are the practices we use (or should be using) every day in everything we do.
CORE VALUES:
- Govern personal relationships
- Guide business processes
- Clarify who we are
- Articulate what we stand for
- Help explain why we do business the way we do
- Guide us on how to teach
- Inform us on how to reward
- Guide us in making decisions
- Underpin the whole organization
- Require no external justification
- Essential tenets
CORE VALUES ARE NOT:
- Operating practices
- Business strategies
- Cultural norms
- Competencies
- Changed in response to market/ administration changes
- Used individually
By Way of Comparison
By way of comparison, here are examples of Core Values identified by other organizations.
DISNEY – to make people happy.
- Nurture and promulgate wholesome American values.
- Creativity, Dream, Imagination.
- Preservation and control of the Disney magic.
- Absolute, meticulous attention to detail
MERCK – to preserve and improve human life.
- Corporate social responsibility.
- Unequivocal excellence in all aspects of the company.
- Science-based innovation.
- Honesty and integrity.
- Profit – from work that benefits humanity.
SONY – to experience the joy of advancing and applying technology for the benefit of the public.
- Elevation of Japanese culture and national status.
- Being a pioneer, not following others, doing the impossible.
- Encouraging individual ability and creativitiy.
U.S. ARMY
- Courage – Face fear, danger or adversity.
- Duty – Fulfill your obligations.
- Honor – Live up to all Army values.
- Integrity – Do what’s right, legally and morally.
- Loyalty – Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other soldiers.
- Respect – Treat people as they should be treated.
- Service – Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Our Core Values are a statement of the framework in which we accomplish our Mission. They express the manner in which, both individually and collectively, we pursue our mission. When we are challenged in fulfilling our mission, our Core Values sustain us and guide us in meeting the challenge. - National Leadership Council, 2001
Tags: american values, basic elements, benefit, brand, branding, business, business processes, business strategies, collectibles, communicating, communication, core values, creativity, cultural norms, experiences, experiment, follower, government politics, guide business, happiness, imagination, integrity, interaction, interactions, justification, life, marketing, merck, meticulous attention, moral, national park service, nurture, organization, personal relationships, personalities, personality, politics, politics and technology, profitability, relationships guide, responsibility, social, strategy, technology, Tenets, united states government, Value
Posted in branding, business, featured, life | No Comments »
May 19th, 2009
What’s in a great brand?
You are.
A bad brand pushes their products on you. A good brand sells their benefits to you.A great brand sells you to you.
- A great brand shows you how you are integral to them.
- A great brand personalizes your experience.
- A great brand draws you in because you see yourself there.
- A great brand compels you to share so your friends want to get involved.
- A great brand knows that the most important thing to you is you.
- A great brand is a great host.
- A great host makes sure that each guest is the center of attention.
A great brand doesn’t tell you how you need them.
A great brand shows you how they need you.
Terminate Yourself | Trek Yourself
via Adam Cohen‘s blog A Thousand Cuts Is User Generated Content the New Campaign Standard?
Tags: benefit, brand, branding, consumers, experiences, experiment, friends, integrity, networking, personalities, personality, productivity, selling, social, technology, Value
Posted in branding, featured, life | 4 Comments »
May 12th, 2009

via loop_oh
Dan Miranda / @timecommander
“The original is always worth more than the copy.”
As the quote hung across the room of my classroom, my mind started to drift away from the statistics handout I was given. First, I thought about the social situations that occurred to me throughout the day.
Then I thought more about how it affected marketing, branding and life. By the time the class was out, I already had a new post formulated in my brain. Here is precisely what I thought during that time: Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: advantage, being a leader, beliefs, brain, brand, branding, consumer, consumers, contrary to popular belief, dale carnegie, experiences, experiment, follower, friends, how to win friends and influence people, imagine one, influencer, inspiration, john quincy adams, leader post, life, marketing, one million, personalities, personality, population, profitability, quotes, social, social situations, statistics, thoughtfulness, twitter, uniqueness, Value
Posted in featured, life | 3 Comments »
January 20th, 2009
Customer value, not control, is the answer in the digital economy. ~Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams in Wikinomics (p.143) Value Shmalue. I have noticed many people speaking of value lately but no one speaking of what exactly is value. I decided that before the word “value” goes to the 2.0
hype graveyard like many others have (see: the cloud, Whatever X.0) I would get to the bottom of it all. I asked my followingers what value meant to them in order to get to some basic tenets of why they valued something. Needless to say this all took place early in the morning whereupon i did forgo sleep to see where this line of questioning led me. I ended up valuing a lack of something in gain of something else, which speaks to the myriad of answers that people gave. The following are my conversations broken down with people based on person and categorized into points each person contributed to the discussion on value. While it is not the end all be all definitive go-to guide to delineate value, it is a start:
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: amp, brand, branding, business, categorization, chat, clue, collectibles, communicating, communication, communications, conversation, Conversation Ecosystem, conversations, customer value, design, designers, digital economy, discussion, don tapscott, downloading, experiences, experiment, follower, fool, generalities, graveyard, hype, interaction, interactions, iTunes, knowledge, left hand side, life, limited, listening, live journal, marketing, media, mediums, myriad, network, networked, networking, Peers, perception, permanence, personalities, personality, plans, Principles, reading, reply, responsibility, signs, sleep, social, social media, streams, Tenets, thoughtfulness, tweets, twitter, uniqueness, Value, visuals, weirdness, wikinomics, word value, words
Posted in business, featured, life | 3 Comments »
January 14th, 2009
The following is a candid conversation I had with a good friend of mine, Carl Gucciardi. The topics range from pornography to music/media downloading and piracy to companies purchase of your mindspace to freemium models of business. If you can not handle an open honest and frank discussion about these topics I suggest you stop reading and stop interacting in the world today. But I’m sure since you’re here you have an open-mind and are intrigued to learn what we have touched upon and how it will spur your own growth to rise to new heights. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: about, brand, branding, business, buying in, candid conversation, carl gucciardi, cd, chat, collectibles, consciousness, consumer, consumers, conversation, Counting Crows, creators, discussion, downloading, dvd, eve lawrence, event, experiment, Facebook, freemium, friends, gay, Ghosts, good friend, growth, guilt, half.com, i have dreams, In Rainbows, interaction, interactions, iPod, katie morgan, knowledge, life, limewire, marketing, media, mentions, mindspace, mp3, music, music media, musical, network, networking, networking applications, NIN, pearl jam, piracy, porn, porn video, pornography, present, productivity, Radiohead, reading, record companies, selling, social, social networking, subscribers, The Blood Brothers, Value, video, viewpoint, vivid video, wallet, world today, youporn
Posted in featured | 5 Comments »
Has the Web 2.0 bubble burst?
Is the web 2.0 bubble balloon slowly deflating?
Recently Meg Pickard released an updated version of the now infamous Web 2.0 image map. This new map breaks down who is dead, acquired and alive (X, O, and no mark, respectively)
Kevin Eklund’s statistical analysis of the chart:
Web 2.0: Project or Business?
Mashable touted all those on the list (survivors included) as a testament to those willing to do rather than watch. While I tend to agree with Mashable and others concerning the survival/success rate of Web 2.0 businesses, no one is asking the important question. Only Doug Martin begins to touch upon it:
I created one of the projects Xed out on the first chart. Looking back it was a project and not a business – I got coverage on all the hot tech blogs and the associated huge spike in traffic but there really was not a business there. It did help me get my next job though and it was a fun ride.
Many Web 2.0 companies start out with a great idea, ambition and a rush to get it first to market. The problem with that is when you think like a designer or a developer you get those results. A businessman thinks of the bottom line: money.
Amazing ideas are all well and good but if you don’t have a proper monetization model in place before you launch you are setting yourself up for disaster. You also need short & long term road maps and an exit strategy. Core values and belief systems MUST be set up before you can start doing business. Crawl, walk, run, fly.
I’m not interested in a failure rate or what that means for a new web industry. What I am interested in is why. Why did these companies fold? Why are some still around? Why did some get acquired? Rates mean nothing without reason behind them.
Web You.0
Meg Pickard is at least asking one question, a question about creating a new roadmap:
“If anyone would like to make a new collage of startups in this genre for 2009, I’d be very interested to see it – please post the link in the comments. Here’s the collage above, but with all the defunct companies removed. There are plenty of healthy and exciting companies around these days which could fill those empty spaces. Who’ll take on the task of filling the gaps?”
I propose not just a new update to the Web 2.0 map but a new way to organize it as well.
Just remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Also, Rome is just a city now instead of an empire. Think about that.
Connect with me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Tags: ambition, belief systems, beliefs, blog, brand, branding, business, businessman, chart web, collage, colors, commenters, communications, core values, design, designers, doug martin, eklund, excitement, exit strategy, experiment, Facebook, failure, failure rate, Friendfeed, fun ride, functionality, grouping, image map, interactions, lists, marketing, mashable, models, network, networked, networking, one question, organization, road maps, roadmap, social, social media, startups, statistical analysis, statistics, strategy, success rate, tech, technology, twitter, update, Value, web industry
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »