

Doubts About Twitter the Business - buckpost
http://www.twitterrati.com/2009/03/19/doubts-about-twitter-the-business/

======
Brushfire
You know what is most amusing about this? I have more doubts about Facebook's
long term business plans than Twitters. Twitter seems easily monetizable, and
the fact that others are already doing it outside (twitpay, etc) is some
validation. Facebook seems to be monetizable only through ads. Annoying,
annoying ads.

Both companies have potential valuation issues, however.

~~~
nir
But isn't it trivial for Facebook to offer Twitter's functionality (or do they
already? Not an FB user ;)) and instantly have about x30 (AFAIK) larger
userbase?

~~~
unalone
They don't offer exact functionality (they're not aimed at the same market),
but they've got something close.

Facebook already has ads, though, and they're evolving a business plan
constantly. Twitter has nothing. So they have less experience with raising
money and they've got more to lose.

~~~
swombat
I disagree. Twitter is already testing its adverts, and masterfully so imho.

I've clicked on those ads that they have now already. And since they were
interesting things, I'm likely to keep an eye on that area for the foreseeable
future, to see if anything else neat crops up.

Seems like an excellent way to roll-out ads... first, make the users look at
the area where you'll place the ads, by putting interesting stuff there, and
then put paid ads there.

So long as most ads remain relatively interesting/targeted, I'll keep looking.
And probably clicking, too.

Consider also that Twitter users are very used to clicking on external links,
because we do it all the time for links tweeted by others. I am much less
likely to click on an external link in FB than on Twitter.

~~~
unalone
Huh! I didn't know Twitter was rolling out ads at all.

Facebook has some excellent targeting. I've gone to a few Facebook links and
if I wasn't broke I'd have bought some products, too. (Right now they insist
on showing me the Twilight DVD, though, which irritates me.)

~~~
swombat
Click here to see the ads: <http://skitch.com/swombat/beiik/twitter-now-with-
ads>

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Those are not ads. Those are just little promos for twitter features. By this
logic, every link in the topnav and footer of twitter is an "ad".

[http://www.itworld.com/business/64445/twitter-house-ads-
appe...](http://www.itworld.com/business/64445/twitter-house-ads-appear)

~~~
swombat
And you really think they're not going to use that piece of prime real-estate
for text advertising? Wake up and smell the coffee :-)

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I don't doubt that they are, but these are not ads.

HN has a lot of prime homepage real estate to the right, but if they put a
link there to the submission form, it's hardly an ad :)

~~~
swombat
Yes, and so my point is, this is a masterful approach to pave the way for
placing ads there.

The standard way is to place ads and juggle them about until you've figured
out where they attract the more clicks. Twitter's way appears to first
manufacture a high-interest area (by putting cool twitter stuff there), then,
once people are used to seeing nifty stuff there, start selling that nifty
space to others.

------
ryanwaggoner
The fact that we have invented the term "monetization" to delineate the point
at which fun web projects try and become true businesses only underscores the
fact that much of Web 2.0 is about getting rich (relatively) quickly, rather
than building sustainable businesses.

------
nir
Favorite quote: "Sanford Bernstein’s bearish approach is based on its belief
the Web 2.0 model of building something and then figuring out a way to make
money is no longer valid."

IIRC, that was supposed to be our lesson from the dot.com bubble :) The early
hype about "Web 2.0" was that this time around we're doing it for cheap and
with a revenue model...

~~~
preview
I disagree. The lesson from the dot.com bubble was that anything put on the
Internet could be monetized and would become profitable. That was (and is)
silly.

The "Web 2.0" mindset, at least the mindset I've seen most often on HN, is
build it fast and get it out there to see if it has value. I also think there
is some thought to how the solution can be monetized, but plans change in
response to changing environments.

~~~
nir
Yes, but how do you judge if it has value? It seems that, as in the dot.com
era, it's still not judged by income, but by number of users (or just level of
hype - Twitter only has ~6 million users).

Current technology does make this valid in some sense - you can launch very
cheaply and, if you attract enough interest, get bought by a larger company.
As I understand this is YC's general approach. But it seems that Twitter tends
to refuse buyout offers, so I they are more of a classic dot.com.

