Yesterday, the revenue-unencumbered microblogging service, Twitter, came up with ExecTweets, sponsored by Microsoft (MSFT), as a way to bring in the simoleons.

Without diving into the deep specifics, suffice it to say, BoomTown is not exactly doing somersaults at the idea of following, say, what the fine execs at AIG are up to on a regular basis (Typical tweet: Taxing stolen taxpayer-funded bonuses?!? Where’s the outrage?).

Still, good for Twitter for at least pretending it actually cares about profits.

Because I truly do, and recently initiated a “Twitter Business Plan Count-Up,” dedicated to helping the Silicon Valley start-up come up with money-generating ideas.

That included charging the overhyping media a fee every time they mentioned Twitter and a wearable Twitter-branded device and fleece blanket outfit that vibrates every time you get tweeted.

Now, the Board of Innovation has come up with a “random list of ideas” about how Twitter could make money too (see deck embedded below and fiddle with the zoom or click here).

Some of the 77 ideas–many clearly jokes, but a lot not–include: virtual gifts, reputation-building, premium services, group buying, companies paying to remove negative tweets (also known as the Yelp plan), some sort of sex business and even Twit-shirts.

My favorite and most likely scenario: Just sell the company.

Or–given that coming up with Twitter business plans is akin to eating potato chips and you can’t think of just one–I am now thinking that the service could make bank by taking advantage of the “news” that actress Jennifer Aniston broke up with her louche boyfriend and exceptionally whiny singer, John Mayer, because of his incessant tweeting.

According to Star magazine (which is bizarrely accurate at times), a source told it about the couple (pictured here at the Vanity Fair party at the Oscars this year):

“John suddenly stopped calling her or returning her emails and when she would finally catch up with him, he’d say: ‘I’ve been so busy with work. I’m sorry I haven’t had time to call you back.’ …Jen was fuming. There he was, telling her he didn’t have time for her and yet his page was filled with Twitter updates…Every few hours, sometimes minutes, he’d update with some stupid line. And in her mind, she was like ‘He has time for all this Twittering, but he can’t send me a text, an email, make a call?’”

The nerve! None of us has ever done anything like that!

That aside and also the fact that I am firmly on Team Jolie, let’s try to find an innovative way to get the star-crossed Aniston some of the happiness she so deserves.

(Although, let’s leave aside the fact that one of the people who made so much money on a television show called “Friends” apparently hates social networking.)

Thus, I think there is a real business for those so addicted and wanting to take measures to go into Twitter rehab to save their relationships.

The start-up could open exclusive centers just for celebs and be called something like Twittvarna, and charge an arm and a leg to help them stop writing inane things at all hours of the day and night.

Like, say, this.

But it is a cry for help, as was Mayer’s tweet after the break-up: “This heart didn’t come with instructions.”

Get that man to Twittvarna stat.

In any case, here’s the Board of Innovation deck:

Last week–in a clear sign that BoomTown has spent way too much face time in front of the idiot box–I compared the endless bickering back-and-forth between Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to the annoying push-me-pull-you antics of Ross and Rachel on the television show, “Friends.”

But the continuing discussions between Yahoo and AOL execs over the merger of their struggling online companies have their own TV comparison–the never-ending roundelay on “The View.”

In other words: Blah, blah, blah. Chitter-chatter. Pointless arguing. Chin-scratching. More blah, blah. More chatter. Blah.

Thus, there were still more discussions going on at Yahoo HQ this past week about the possible deal, in which Yahoo is code-named Yale and AOL Amherst.

Along with Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and President Sue Decker, the key Yahoo (YHOO) execs involved in pushing forward the effort, are U.S. head Hilary Schneider, and Greg Mrva, a former investment banker and analyst who is in charge of mergers and acquisitions at the company.

As I previously wrote, the main suits involved in repping the Time Warner (TWX) unit are AOL President Ron Grant and Time Warner M&A SVP Jim Burtson.

“More of the same discussions about how it would all integrate,” said one source close to the situation at Yahoo. “Same as always.”

Added an AOL source, in what I consider the understatement of the year: “There has not been a lot of clarity in decision-making at Yahoo.”

Big surprise: Still no deal!

That’s unusual to me, since all the true obstacles–namely, the collapse of the controversial search advertising deal Yahoo tried to strike with Google (GOOG), AOL and Yahoo’s results coming in as weak as expected and, lastly, a definite lack of interest from Microsoft (MSFT) to rebid for Yahoo–are no longer in the way.

And, of course, Yahoo’s share price–the stock has settled into the depressing $11 to $12 range that gives the company a $15.7 billion valuation–is simply not going up any time soon.

So, if the deal is to be done, the price–or percentage, really–will probably have to be based on today’s reality, which is a very bleak outlook in the graphical online advertising business in which Yahoo plays most strongly.

That’s why dithering is a problem for this possible marriage, despite all the obvious complexity.

For one, it takes all the air out of any momentum such a combination could produce for either Yahoo or AOL, which will be much needed in the current economic environment.

In fact, such an econalypse is actually the perfect cover to try to pull this turnaround–and it is exactly that–off, given few investors or media will expect much from the merger for a while and be more forgiving.

In addition, the slash-and-burn integration needed to drastically refocus the new company–hopefully on three things only: advertising, content and communications–will be easier now more than later when the financial outlook improves.

“Things are going to get a lot worse than people think,” said one AOL exec. “So, this is a really good time for a reset and for cleaning things up.”

It is also easier now to bring in fresh ideas and new leadership to a combined Yahoo/AOL, as a new company will surely give many talented outside execs who have avoided both separately a reason to look again.

I could go on as to why this deal should move forward quickly, but here is one piece of great advice I got several years ago, from a well-known Internet entrepreneur whose company had just taken a big gamble by buying a controversial but fast-growing start-up in a key category.

At the time, many decried the move as too risky and too pricey and too thoughtlessly done. When I asked the exec about this, he did not argue, but offered this:

“No one really knows how anything is going to turn out, no matter how long they think it through,” he said. “But, I believe it will all work out if we execute well on the promise, because I did know one thing for sure: It was the right direction.”

And, indeed, while you can puzzle over a map endlessly, knowing the right direction to go in is the only thing one can be sure of in almost any circumstance in life.

Therefore, all Yahoo and AOL have to do is pick a path–whether it be to move on or merge–and just go.

By tomorrow would work for me.

In the meantime, below is a video I did of Yahoo’s Yang onstage at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco last week, talking about the travails of the last year.

It includes him saying Microsoft should still buy Yahoo, which felt a little too much like a plea to me. (I happened to be sitting next to some Microsoft execs during the speech and they did not look too moved by the begging.)

But judge for yourself–here’s the video (yes, the Web 2.0 Summit organizers did flash a picture of a jar of Jif peanut butter as a joke–ha, ha, referring to the infamous Yahoo “Peanut Butter Manifesto”):

Is it just me or does it feel like the whole odd public back- and-forth between Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is beginning to mimic the endless loop of the deeply annoying relationship between Ross Geller and Rachel Green on the long-running NBC television hit, “Friends”?

At least in their star-crossed hijinks, Ross and Rachel smooched from time to time in between the juvenile bickering (”We were on a break!”) and push-me-pull-you antics. And, mercifully for fans of the show, they got together in the very last episode.

But with Yang and Ballmer, it has been only juvenile bickering and push-me-pull-you antics 24/7, which is why BoomTown wishes they would just get a room.

A conference room to negotiate in, of course! (Get your minds out of the gutter!)

Instead, in the latest episode, it was Yang resorting to declaring in front of a ballroom full of Silicon Valley geeks at the Web 2.0 Summit on Wednesday: “To this day, I believe the best thing for Microsoft to do is to buy Yahoo.”

In a quick retort, from Australia of all places and on Yang’s 40th birthday, in fact, Ballmer bestowed this special gift back:

“Look, we made an offer, we made another offer. It was clear that Yahoo didn’t want to sell the business to us, and we moved on…We are not interested in going back and re-looking at an acquisition. I don’t know why they would be either, frankly.”

Shares of Yahoo (YHOO) have tanked almost 14 percent today after that, down $1.86 to $12.10.

Now, this kind of public display of nonaffection is not new for Ballmer, who previously raised and then tanked Yahoo’s stock price only two weeks ago, when he dangled the possibility that Microsoft might be interested in talking to Yahoo about a new search deal.

“There are probably still opportunities around search,” said Ballmer. “I think it would still make sense economically for their shareholders and ours.”

This cloddish phrasing by Ballmer was, no surprise, misconstrued by investors as full-scale interest in Yahoo, requiring a Microsoft (MSFT) spokesman to quickly enter the breach to clarify.

“Our position hasn’t changed. Microsoft has no interest in acquiring Yahoo; there are no discussions between the companies,” he said.

It’s astonishing that this is what passes for corporate behavior on both sides.

Aside from the silliness, because it still does make sense for the pair to be talking and forming some sort of strong relationship.

In my mind, the best idea was always the complex “Traffic Co.” deal that involved Microsoft buying a large piece of Yahoo, adding its lagging MSN assets in and taking over the entire search business of the entity.

As part of that configuration, the digital assets of a media giant like Time Warner (TWX) or News Corp. (NWS), which own AOL and MySpace respectively, could also be added in.

Thus, the “new” Yahoo would focus squarely on content and communications, which it would dominate across the Internet, keeping its display ad business. Meanwhile, Microsoft could then try to really turbocharge the search and search ad business and stop mucking around in arenas it had less talent in.

It’s a lot better than what’s going on right now, which helps neither company, both of which are clearly bumping along with a desperate need for clarity.

And, if they cannot come to some terms, Yahoo has to either move on and fix itself alone or complete its long-running merger talks with AOL or not (this pair is more like Sam and Diane on “Cheers”).

And Microsoft has to stop dithering and finally pick a digital head for its business (more on that next!), a search that is beginning to feel as if Amelia Earhart will be found sooner.

Or, like Ross and Rachel, Yang and Ballmer could just admit finally–despite all their differences over the last year–that they truly are meant for each other and get down to business.

Well, here’s a good reason not to write off Joost quite yet: When the London-based company officially debuts its new Web-based service in mid-October, it will have some pretty hot content with its half-dozen seasons of the former NBC hit, “Friends.”

Also, there will finally be no more irksome plug-ins.

In other words, anyone with an Internet connection can watch streaming television shows and movies on Joost, with advertising embedded in various forms.

There will also be social-networking elements–you can see what your friends watch and form groups, make comments with cool tools and the rest of that sort of thing.

While all this is not going to make up for the lost time the online video service has wasted with its annoying P2P-based desktop client download, going to a Web-based, all-Flash service with more robust content is certainly the right way to stop rival service Hulu from continuing to clean Joost’s clock.

Joost was first out of the gate last year with a giant slug of funding, fancy founders (Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström, who were also founders of Web phenoms Skype and Kazaa) and blue-chip investors (Sequoia Capital, Index Ventures, as well as CBS, Viacom and wealthy Hong Kong investor Li Ka-shing).

In any case, Hulu quickly grabbed the lead in terms of press praise (I ate my words even!), ease-of-use and, most importantly, user numbers.

In the most recent stats, for example, Hulu had more than 100 million monthly video streams and 3.3 million unique monthly visitors. (But since Joost has just soft-launched its new Web-only service, it’s hard to make comparisons just yet, although the competition is now clearly afoot!)

And, although it has been written off by some, I do not think it is too late for Joost.

First, it is still early in the premium online video game.

Second, success will depend on having increasing amounts of quality content. And Joost–with CBS, Warner Bros., Sony and other unusual content like anime–certainly can keep up with Hulu’s programs from its partner parents, News Corp. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones and this Web site) and NBC Universal.

Lastly, despite decent consumer uptake, the business is still in its nascent popcorn-stand stage of revenue and profit generation.

And while spending too much money and having too many employees did not help Joost, it seems as though CEO Mike Volpi has finally gotten control of the start-up beast.

Thus, while in London this week, I stopped in at the offices of Joost (near the famed King’s Cross train station, where, of course–to no avail–I tried to make it through the wall at Platform 9 3/4!) to chat with Volpi about all the changes at the much-hyped company.

Here’s a longish video, in which the always-well-turned-out former Cisco exec talks about all that and more: