On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Andrew Badera <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:57 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Kevin Mesiab<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > A per follower charge is a fast way to obliterate the value of Twitter >> as a >> > platform. >> >> I disagree. Businesses are using Twitter to listen to their customers >> and to engage with them. I think a business should be allowed to >> follow as many customers and prospects as they want, totally without >> limits and totally without charge. But I think they should pay for the >> right to appear in thousands of timelines and to send direct messages >> to thousands of people. >> >> > > The value you describe isn't usually found in direct followers (may as well > call them fans) as it is in random conversations between > less-biased/maniacal persons. > > The value of direct followers is direct interaction, which carries with it > various biases and skews. Direct interaction is great for tech support, and > for answering specific questions, but not for assessing consumer intent, > confidence or general attitude. > > I think the non-direct conversation mining has a lot greater value for > business. > PS It seems like you're thinking in conventional advertising terms, and that just doesn't play well on the Internet. "Charge them for access to the medium in a way that derives value" -- works. "Charge them for access to the medium to distribute their message" -- does not work well/sustainably.
