by Michelle Lentz
Locally, I followed @Cincinnati_News on Twitter. I’m not sure who runs it (neither is anyone else it seems). The web site on the profile is the City of Cincinnati site and the tweet sources information from several local news stations and the local newspaper. Of course, the bio also says “a great place to live, work, and play” and then sources all the bad news, so I’m not sure how great an advertisement it is anyway.
Now, this particular Twitter account has always had a small problem with tweeting in annoyingly huge chunks. But it was something to which we all adjusted, as it was a good source of news. But last week, someone made the decision to add Magpie tweets.
What’s Magpie? As the tagline says, “convert your tweets into bling-bling.” Sign up and monetize your tweets (and irritate your followers). Advertisers give a tweet to magpie, who looks at its members. It finds members that would be interested in this tweet and sends it out. It shows up in the timeline of the person who signed up. Of course, if you’re subscribed to that person, you see it too. In their FAQs, Magpie actually says “So keep your followers happy and don’t risk annoying them with too many magpie-tweets.”
When Magpie first debuted, it was a big question. Will people unfollow someone because they use it? Well, in Cincinnati at least, that answer is yes. We don’t want advertising – and annoyances – in our Twitter feed. The solution is peaceful protest of course – simply unfollowing.
You can see some of the reactions here and in the screenshot below. @Cincinnati_news followers were not happy that their timelines had been co-opted for advertising.
Would you unfollow someone using Magpie? I did. I always say that readers – of your tweets or of your blog – are smart. They don’t mind occasional self-promotion. We all do it. But turn your feed into an obvious ad and people are going to walk away. You’re not the only one out there with the information, and they want your opinion, not your obvious zeal for monetizing. No one is going to judge you for monetizing things, just be subtle about it.
UPDATE: It looks like all the commotion was a little much for @Cincinnati_News. They’ve taken down their Twitter account.
__
Contact Michelle with news, stories, events, and more.
Email: michelle[at]writetech[dot]net
Twitter: @writetechnology
Friendfeed: michellel
Blogs: Write Technology, Wine-Girl.net
Discussion
They’ve taken it down altogether? That could be even more embarrassing than running Magpie in the first place. I hope they get their ducks in a row soon, I like seeing local outlets on Twitter.
I used Magpie since the week it was released. It only posts updates in my name about once every 4 days which is so little that no one really cares. I just cashed in about $70 that I’ve earned so far using the service. Pretty impressive for something that not one of my 1650 followers has complained about.
My question with regard to magpie is: how is it any different than the sponsored blog posts that many of the largest tech blogs in the industry run regularly?
In effect I see sponsored twitter posts as the same thing as “thanks to our sponsors” blog posts.
That said, I understand that many see it quite differently, which always leaves me a bit confused!
Adam – I think that’s fantastic and once every 4 days is much more subtle than several times per day. The feed in question was running Magpie ads so often it was intrusive.
I support subtle. As Magpie says,”keep your followers happy and don’t risk annoying them with too many magpie-tweets.” You obviously succeed at this, which means that if more folks can follow directions, this sort of monetization might work.
Cheers!
Eric:
I see your point, and I just had this conversation with my husband over lunch.
For me, it’s a bit different with Twitter than blogs. I’m generally subscribing to a feed for some sort of personal interaction. When that personal interaction becomes an ad more often than content, I take issue. I feel the same way about those whose Twitter feeds are nothing but “new blog post”.
I think it’s a personal thing. I also believe, as demonstrated by Adam in these comments, that Magpie can be used in more subtle, less obtrusive ways.
I’m one of the people who got caught up in the Cincinnati News controversy, I guess. For me it wasn’t that they were using Magpie, it was that I was seeing things daily (if not more often) combined with multiple updates in a row– sometime as many as 10-15. It was a textbook case of how NOT to use Twitter effectively. The Magpie ads wouldn’t have bothered me if they were less frequent, or if Cincinnati_News actually contributed more to the discourse besides bad news with no commenting on other tweets. It’s all how you use the product.
I’m one of the people who got caught up in the Cincinnati News controversy, I guess. For me it wasn’t that they were using Magpie, it was that I was seeing things daily (if not more often) combined with multiple updates in a row– sometime as many as 10-15. It was a textbook case of how NOT to use Twitter effectively. The Magpie ads wouldn’t have bothered me if they were less frequent, or if Cincinnati_News actually contributed more to the discourse besides bad news with no commenting on other tweets. It’s
I’m actually one of the Twitter users you see on the screen shot (last one who called it “Magpie crap”). I understand wanting to monetize your blog or web site. I can see using Twitter to drive traffic to said blog or web site. But, I’m not sure about using your 140 characters to spam your followers, especially when the ratio seems to be one spam tweet to every ten or so real tweets. The fact that @Cincinnati_News has disappeared on Twitter seems to back up the theory that the monetizing was the only purpose of the Twitter account.
It’s my face in that screen image reflecting the negative response to Magpie.
Here’s the reason why I don’t like it: It’s an unsolicited sales pitch. I prescribe to many, many folks for different reasons. One guy? I like his marketing industry information. I follow another person (a celebrity) because I like how he describes his travel destinations. I follow several people because they’re “real life” friends and I’m interested in the comings and goings of their lives. All of these people provide specific content, but even they vary from time to time.
Sometimes the marketing guy makes a pop music reference. Sometimes the celeb mentions a training tip. Sometimes my friends like to talk shop on twitter.
And that’s okay with me. Those nuances have a way of building a better relationship between twitterites (or whatever you may call them).
But rarely do these folks tweet something that smacks of “sales pitch,” and especially “sales-pitch-that’s-wasting-your-time-and-making-me-money.”
Re: “how is it any different than the sponsored blog posts” – easy. Twitter is a free service for users, blogs typically have a cost associated with them, justifying some level of advertising. Even more so, it’s common practice for the select few bloggers to have a gazillion readers to support themselves by blogging – as though it were a magazine.
If Twitter wanted to ruin it’s service with embedded ads every so often, it would do so. Thanks to jackasses that use this service, now they don’t have to. Just my take on it.