On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:57 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky 
> <zzn...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Kevin Mesiab<ke...@mesiablabs.com>
>> 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.

Reply via email to