BoomTown Decodes the Twitter-Is-Really-Serious-Folks-About-Not-Making-$$ Memo
by Kara Swisher
Posted on February 11, 2009 at 12:00 AM PT
In a blog post that comes as the polar opposite of a complete surprise, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone clarified a comment he made to a U.K. magazine that sounded like Twitter might actually charge for something.
Leaving aside the delicious irony of the name “Biz”–given Twitter lack o’ business model–fear not, Web 2.0 Bubblistas!
Because Twitter remains true to its nonrevenue principles, according to Stone in a post yesterday titled “Nothing To Report Just Yet,” stressing that the start-up-de-jour microblogging service would not squeeze companies for existing services–not no way, not no how!
Here’s the Stone post, along with BoomTown’s translation of his words:
Stone wrote: There was a sudden burst of news early this week surrounding some ideas we’ve shared publicly for quite some time. We’ve been thinking out loud for more than a year about the growing use of Twitter by companies, brands, and other commercial organizations. It’s great that both individuals and organizations are finding value in Twitter and there may be ways we can enrich the experience. In fact, we hope to begin iterating on revenue products this year.
Translation: The result of our loud thinking for more than a year? Gobs and gobs of hype and publicity for Twitter, with predictions that it will kill Google (GOOG), best Facebook and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
All in 140 characters.
By the way, “iterating” means “to say or do again” or “again and again.” So expect more loud–even deafening–thinking, even if we never ever come up with a way to make money.
Stone wrote: However, it’s important to note that whatever we come up with, Twitter will remain free to use by everyone–individuals, companies, celebrities, etc. What we’re thinking about is adding value in places where we are already seeing traction, not imposing fees on existing services. We are still very early in the idea stage and we don’t have anything to share just yet despite a recent surge in speculation. When we do, we’ll be sure to let you know.
Translation: Phew! That was close. Because money-making might actually require us to open a bank account, get an accountant and all do that tiresome stuff related to finances.
Until then, with our piles of VC cash and more to come (and in the immortal words of Robin Leach), it’s all champagne wishes and caviar dreams for Twitter.
Thanks for the dough, Fred and Bijan!
[Photo credit: Twitter]
Comments
Funny and so right. But I really do appreciate the Twitter service. It is so weird that a service which can be so useful (I use it as a kind of reading club, a place to get ideas and news, to meet people) has such problems to find a revenue model.
Posted by roland legrand at February 11th, 2009 at 12:18 amroland: “funny”?
Posted by olivier clerc at February 11th, 2009 at 4:48 amI say “well done Kara” or “how to get no better PR about your earliest investment”
How many shares do you have already Kara?
Reporting those echoes drag my attention, but then what?
Inviting VCs to keep some coins for the today’s hottest and the most seriously disruptive “funny” media, before crisis freezes all wallets at the end of the winter.
Just watch the unbeatable traffic progression content and audience generated of Twitter,
it disserves at least a serious report and investigation toward the most simple and advanced right on time media.
This little but Simple webapp influences the Media world today and will de doing even more.
When i just finished to read painfully the characters above, it becomes a question of journalism’s ethic.
About Twitter, Looking forward to read your best lines then, or at least some wise opinions or critics full of insights, that your privileged WSJ profession and reputation allows you.
Common sense dictates that twitter will monetize corporate accounts via a clear segmentation of new functionality for their dollar versus charging them for what has been free.
Logical buckets include: brand verification, follower tracking, engagement analytics and support for micro-formats to add more structure to what can be embedded in a tweet (product listing link, coupon, contest, etc.).
If interested, I blogged on the topic in:
Twitter-nomics: Envisioning Structured Tweets
http://thenetworkgarden.com/we.....omics.html
Check it out.
Mark
Posted by Mark Sigal at February 11th, 2009 at 11:10 amFree idea:
“Going forward Twitter messages will be limited to 135 characters, not 140. Rest reserved for product placement. IBM.”
Posted by Mac Beach at February 11th, 2009 at 12:22 pmI understand your frustration, having looked for a business model for so long from Twitter. But, the way they are going about this is actually incredibly smart. They get it out into the community to minimize the ill-will of users who don’t realize their intentions of creating a business (there’s always a bunch of them), to get great feedback from the community (which I’d argue will prove invaluable to guiding them), and to keep the conversation from turning ugly. It’s not “those guys who don’t care about monetization and are going to burnout” — it’s “those guys who built a cool service and are now carefully turning their eye on the money side.” On that last point, compare and contrast Facebook/Twitter press mentions recently to see it work the other way for FB.
Posted by Tyler Willis at February 12th, 2009 at 10:27 pm