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
>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Kevin Mesiab<ke...@mesiablabs.com>
>> > 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
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.