Ad.ly targets celebs with the same old sponsored Tweet model

Ad.ly is a self-serve Twitter advertising network matching advertisers and celebrities to tweet about products. The celeb gets to approve or decline messages, and advertisers get tracking for click-through rates, retweets and geographic locations for Retweeters. The celebs set their own price, but Ad.ly gives suggestions, and the celebrity has to tweet four times in the course of a week, netting them five figure sums for each message if they have more than a millions followers.

So that’s Magpie or Izea Sponsored Tweets system just with only celebrities. And apparently that’s enough to have attracted Kim Kardashian, Brooke Burke, Nicole Richie, Brody Jenner, Dr. Drew and Samantha Ronson for the launch.

It’s potentially a good move to only have celebrities involved – that way you only go for the big ticket advertising to generate the share for Ad.ly. But it’s not exactly an evolution of monetising Twitter for individuals.

I’m not going to rant about sponsored tweets as having tested them, I’ve continued to use Magpie on the odd occasion – within a few days each year it effectively pays for my hosting costs, and with a young family and little time to monetise Twitter in other ways, I can just about justify it to myself.

But surely celebrities actually have far more to lose? And less to gain considering the myriad ways which they can effectively monetise their followers and fans through their products? Particularly the hypothetical example Ad.ly is using

image

Daily Mail misses the point of Twitter for the umpteenth time

There’s a reason i don’t blog about quantum physics or existentialism. It’s because I don’t know enough about them to offer anything worthwhile, and I’d probably end up looking stupid.

Somehow that doesn’t seem to apply to The Daily Mail when they decide to write an inane piece about Phillip Schofield’s tweets from the Fat Duck.

Apparently the ‘journalist’ in question found it tiresome to listen to the details and see the pictures of Schofield, a British TV presenter, enjoying a £130 meal at the restaurant run by highly experimental TV chef Heston Blummenthal.

Obviously, as pointed out pretty quickly in the comments, they could have unfollowed him, rather than deciding to repeat everything in great detail, and use all of the photos he’d taken without credit or attribution – as Martin Belam pointed out.

There’s no shortage of interesting topics they could have covered instead, and no shortage of digitally-aware people who can also write a decent article. So why waste time and effort doing something so badly when the online newspapers desperately need to find ways to ensure their survival?