free html hit counter Twitter = YouTube. - John Battelle's Search Blog

Twitter = YouTube.

By - February 25, 2009

What? Is Battelle crazy? Hear me out. Think back when YouTube was growing like a weed, and Google snapped it up. Most folks (including me) saw this as Google “getting into the video business,” and sure, that in fact was one part of the equation. But as we all know, making money from consumer driven video ain’t a cakewalk, and hosting that video is really, really expensive. So why did Google really buy YouTube? My answer, which of course looks brilliant given it’s 20/20 hindsight: YouTube was a massive search asset.

Afterall, YouTube now gets more searches than Yahoo, Google’s closest search rival.

So think about that. YouTube was the single fastest growing new form of search on the Web, and Google pretty much outflanked (and outspent) everyone to buy it. Not to get into video monetization, per se, but to harvest and control the most important emerging form of search. In short, Google could not afford to NOT own YouTube.

So, fast forward to today. What’s the most important and quickly growing form of search on the web today? Real time, conversational search. And who’s the YouTube of real time search? Yep. Twitter. It’s an asset Google cannot afford to not own, and also, one they most likely do not have the ability (or brand permission) to build on their own. (Remember, Google tried to build its own YouTube – Google Video – and it failed to get traction. A service like Twitter is community driven, and Google has never been really great at that part of the media business).

That means Google most likely really, really wants to buy Twitter. (So does Facebook, but we’ll get to that in a second). The great twist: Evan and Biz, two of the key co founders of Twitter, have already sold a company to Google (Blogger) and most likely are not keen to do it again. Nor do they have to, given their recent funding and the money they made from pre-IPO Google options.

Add in the fact that Twitter has already said no to a $500mm offer from Facebook, and the fact that Facebook has responded quickly with by opening up its Live Feed status API, and we’ve got a very interesting year ahead of us in the Internet biz. I’ll be watching closely.

(PS – Much speculation lately that Twitter is a threat to Google, see this Merc piece. I’ll respond more to that idea later).

Update: Plenty of folks letting me know of pieces that are related, will post them as the come in. So far:



http://laserlike.com/2008/11/14/why-google-or-yahoo-should-buy-twitter/
from Mike

and http://www.jamesgross.com/facebook-will-be-open/ from James


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

71 thoughts on “Twitter = YouTube.

  1. Cory O'Brien says:

    So are you saying that Google might just overpay for Twitter so that they can own the leading player in the conversational search space, or that regardless of price, Twitter isn’t selling?

    I do like the 20/20 hindsight on the YouTube deal though. For Google to continue being Google, they need to continue to dominate search, so it only makes sense that they’re keeping a close eye on real-time, conversational search.

  2. Steve Poland says:

    “Google is going to buy Twitter out of goodwill, and out of fear.” – Brian Norgard

    Real-time search is going to be huge, and Twitter is the lead horse.

    Google still controls the $$$ in advertising, so I think if the goal is a huge exit, Google will be the buyer. Evan has VC’s he has to answer to now. If he didn’t, I doubt he’d sell-out to Google — because I don’t think he cares about an extra $XXXXmm; he’d rather shake things up.

  3. Agree with this an wrote something similar earlier – http://skylander2000.com

  4. Hi John – Nice analysis. The link to the Merc piece appears to be the broken, though.

  5. MIke Ford says:

    I agree. Twitter’s real-time search and word of mouth clicks are more valuable than search traffic. Higher conversion rate and better performance = higher eCPM.

    Twitter traffic is already outperforming other search engines other than Google. The issue is they aren’t getting any money for it yet. Inline text ads seems like easy way to develop revenue without interfering with community usage.

    Twitter also has an ability to scale to hyperlocal level..small medium businesses.

    @mikeford

  6. Bruce Hamm says:

    John you observations would be so much better if you rooted it in financial data. Companies don’t just throw out cash without modeling on the future cash flows. Tighten it up for us.

  7. The value of RS is hugely overblown (JB-hype like this doesn’t help). Relevance faces huge algo problems that Twitter is in no better position to solve than anyone else. My study on this here: http://bit.ly/1456Jd

  8. Tom Nocera says:

    A much better outcome for all – even to include our economy – would be for Twitter to serve as the Silicon Valley’s “ice breaker” for re-opening the now solidly frozen channel of the IPO.

    The greater good would be for Twitter to go public, and thereafter, should it suit the shareholders then, of both GOOG and “TWIT” to effect a merger, then that would be a fine outcome for all. Google with its collective wisdom surely knows that what’s good for the economy, in the long run, will be good for Google.

  9. jon burg says:

    Using this logic, why didn’t Google sign a deal with Facebook?

    I think the YouTube relationship was about more than search (though search was a real consideration). It was about owning the content journey online. Search is about discovery. Discovery-on-demand has replaced the portal. YouTube presented a new form of web interactivity, one that was quickly changing surfing behavior. YouTube was eyeballs. YouTube presented reach in the fastest growing web format – video.

    I don’t know that this was a pure search play.

    I think it was an investment in an uncertain future. Google was playing with TV advertising. They had already launched Google Video. This was part of a broader initiative – to own the video ad market. Now that this has not come to fruition, Google is experiencing the added value of owning yet another phase of the search and discovery process.

  10. Spot on. I think you’ve nailed the real-time search aspect of Twitter and why it makes sense for Google to purchase them, but there’s one more big reason — Twitter is also a threat to FeedBurner as well.

    The biggest surprise to me, about Twitter, is how quickly its supplanted churning through my usual RSS feeds to keep up to date on industry news, blogs, etc. Now I just follow my favorite “personalities” and am instantly notified when they post as well as what they read and whom they talk to….

    Completely caught off guard by this, but I find it even more addictive and personal. Call it publishing or distribution 3.0 maybe ;)

    twitter.com/gschmitt

  11. Dan Rockwell says:

    Spot on. Aside from the obvious real time chatter benefits, its also a bit of attention eye sore to Google. I always saw Youtube as just such a wave of attention that Google no doubt was missing out on.

    They bought Jiaku, snuffed it. Now Twitter potentially challenges them in sheer awareness. Google will give me one research, but I’ll tell ya- search real time conversations, given the 140 character constraint, is damn telling.

    Could they even buy Twitter and not escape the increasing shadow of monopoly being cast upon them as of late.

    Owning Twitter would effectively close the loop on the attainable insight to a large degree. Facebook’s still there, but will they still be the IT child of web come 2018?

    I stand behind my idea of the Twitter Nationalization Act of 2011, where by twitter is clued into the gov so much that it cannot afford for it to be sold to any one company- perpetual beta will preside over the brand while the empire farms insight from the masses.

  12. John – you just perfectly answered the perennial question: “When and how will Twitter make money?”

    Answer: It won’t. It won’t have to. Two of the biggest rivals in technology will spend the year falling all over themselves to own it. And since that bidding war will drive the price tag into the stratosphere Evan will happily sell.

    Would be a bummer for Google if such a buy sparked an antitrust investigation though. I gather DC folks – esp the new antitrust cop – aren’t keen on Google getting any bigger.

  13. Srini Kumar says:

    i have a few twitter logo stickers left if anyone wants one :)

  14. Joe Lazarus says:

    I’d love to see some stats to support the argument that real-time, conversational search is the fastest growing segment of the search vertical. Does anyone have Comscore metrics for search.twitter.com?

    I’m also not so sure that Google would be a good home for Twitter. Google doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to community-driven sites. If it’s the real-time search component that they need, they could index that information without owning the company… as well as other real-time data sources.

    I’d rather see Apple buy Twitter. They could integrate it with the iPhone & iChat, pre-install a desktop client on all Macs, and use Twitter’s identity / social graph as the foundation for their future web efforts like MobileMe.

  15. chad says:

    great post and awesome insight.

  16. For all the Twitter hype, I think this analysis is pretty sober and that the comparison to YouTube is apt. Google certainly didn’t buy YouTube for its revenue, and even the revenue it’s made from YouTube since acquiring it hardly justifies the purchase price. But they didn’t feel they could not own the gateway to video content on the web–especially since they were far enough along with Google Video to know they’d lost that fight. I’m sure they’d love to own Facebook but aren’t willing to pay the asking price. Twitter may well be affordable for them, especially if the investors get antsy enough over Twitter’s lack of revenue.

  17. Charbax says:

    Jaiku is much better, works on Google App Engine for unlimited scalability, is open-source and really decentralized.

    Just as for facebook, Google can just scrape and copy all the data out of twitter and put it into Jaiku systems in a matter of a second.

  18. Chuck says:

    Twitter is just a time drain no? For those writing and those reading.

    It really serves no productivity purpose correct?

    Thats my observations…

    Have fun twitter folk. I have more important things to do.

  19. pnw fitness says:

    Great article. I’m sure big brother google is watching…

    We’re in for an exciting year. The twitter hype in MSM is blowing up.

  20. More of this ridiculousness. I’m pretty sure the reason GOOG bought YouTube was because YouTube was running out of money, and was going to have to sell to someone; they were in talks with Yahoo and GOOG couldn’t let them pick up the site and all the page views (read: ad inventory) that YouTube represented.

    Also, Google doesn’t need Twitter to do real-time search. They have a blog search engine that could be re-purposed to index microblogs, piece-o-cake. And they’ve already adjusted their main search algorithm to account for new, breaking content from news and blogs.

    Plus, real-time search is lacking in the intent that web search has (you, of all people, should know this). Twitter is a social network with powerful search, but it’s only of value to brand names, and then only once it’s been analyzed and organized. It’s no better than blog search, and if Technorati didn’t take down Google, neither will Twitter.

  21. The Greek God says:

    Conversations and all forms of audio data are effectively the “dark matter” that will make up the Internet Universe. Google can and must get into this space.

  22. alphanaliste says:

    I entirely agree with Gershman, and don’t understand what you’re smoking here, John.

    Oh, not that somebody won’t buy Twitter for too much, and nobody’s got more of that than Goog, but (like Youtube) it will be a strategic move in the wrong direction.

  23. Marty says:

    I disagree. Twitter’s search value is nothing like YouTube. Real-time discovery is interesting, but that isn’t Google’s business.

  24. John Smth says:

    Real-time search over conversations… hmmm, sounds a lot like the hype around blog search, which… um… never materialized.

    What exactly do you think people would be searching for on Twitter and finding actual value from? The world of 140 character pieces of gold-like wisdom? Come on…

    Take another toke John, it’s a pipe dream.

    Searching for videos is the equivalent of being the TV guide – there is value there, but not as much as searches related to commerce.

    One can post-rationalize anything really. YouTube was bought because they snookered Google into buying it. There was no real business plan in place to justify the purchase, we all know that.

  25. So how much is twitter worth? Anybody want to take a guess?! :)

  26. Completely agree with your thesis…

    I see Twitter + FriendFeed as the tag team for the live web.

    Whether the asset is search or not, you can’t dismiss that Twitter is the well positioned to serve as “central spine” of rapidly emerging live web.

    How many apps are written on Twitter API and announced almost on a daily basis?

    Is Twitter a threat to “the Borg”, not yet, but don’t underestimate its current momentum and real time gravitational attraction.

  27. Haber says:

    But is it for sale? No. Or could be.

    I think twitter would be fools to sell right now approaching the apex of enlightenment. It would be a terrible play for them.

    I see twitter standing alone as its own internet titan, why sell to Google, but oh i’m sure Google has been on the front lawn along with Jerry Yang in a toga begging for piece of Twitter. All the while twitter just keeps refining their experience, staying true, and watching people.

    I can yield a better pulse on what the planet thinks about a brand thru twitter than I can with search or blog or brand monitoring tools. Most of these tools leverage twitter as well to farm up the pulse. This is hugely valuable, and potentially one of many stakes in the ground as to what people will gravitate to next, and Twitter knows this.

    Remember Batman Forever? Twitter is our generations Edward Nygma. (and i think that two face guy could be either facebook and myspace or maybe google i dunno)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnHO0LdJ4Ck

    Its our brain on the box. Sell to Google, Yahoo.. are you mad?

  28. i can’t agree more. i have been claiming for a while now that Google is a natural buyer of Twitter because Twitter does a better job at complex search and because it catches attention span from Google search but also from Gmail. Would be a must addition to opensocial and android.

    I wrote more about it here http://is.gd/kVTl

  29. Jesse Farmer says:

    I don’t think it’s about search, per se, it’s about data. Twitter is one of the few independent communication channels out there.

    They’d want Twitter for the same reason they bid on the 700MHz spectrum. Search is just one of the many things they could do if Twitter were a Google property.

  30. I think real-time search for various verticals represents a key growth area for 2009 and beyond. Whether Twitter can capitalize and develop a business model around it before competitors remains to be seen.

    Right now the two frontrunners appear to be offering premium services and advertising.Given that there are so many free services available on the web it’s hard to see how offering premium services would work.

    As for advertising, Most businesses that use the web to market their services have two main objectives

    1) Attract new customers.

    2) Retain existing customers.

    Twitter is a very good communication tool hence it falls into 2). Right now most web services that fall into this category don’t tend perform very well at advertising (i.e. social networks).

    Google is very good at 1) Most websites get their traffic from search.

    So If Twitter can build out their tools to enable businesses to attract customers/traffic online advertising will become a very viable business model…and that’s when things become really interesting.

    ….That’s my two pence worth (sorry cents – I’m UK based)

    YouPage.com

  31. Dave McClure says:

    John Borthwick (Betaworks) wrote an interesting piece related to this a few weeks back:
    http://bit.ly/create-destroy

  32. Sherif says:

    I would agree with you, but Google has already bought Jaiku (and announced they will give it away for free – the source – downloadable, and host it on appengine)

    Why would they want to by Jaiku? It would just be for the content maybe? If they bought Twitter, that would mean their Jaiku purchase was a bad one..

  33. All that twitter search does for me is to send me to msm news sites or half baked rumors. What good can come from that ?

  34. Brock Desset says:

    Jaiku was mentioned a couple of times by commenters. I think that was google’s foray into that space and they scuttled it. I doubt google buys twitter if not for a ridiculous price.

  35. I disagree. Twitter’s search value is nothing like YouTube. Real-time discovery is interesting, but that isn’t Google’s business.

    Twitter traffic is already outperforming other search engines other than Google. The issue is they aren’t getting any money for it yet. Inline text ads seems like easy way to develop revenue without interfering with community usage.

    http://www.karizma.ro

  36. so long as they call their ranking system something other than TwitRank.

    :)

  37. ZuDfunck says:

    Great food for thought.

    I sampled this if only to further the wisdom!

    ZuD

  38. John Furrier says:

    I agree with John on this one. I’ve been saying for some time that monetization doesn’t matter because if they get the critical mass then it will either sell (most likely) or figure out a revenue model that leverages the audience. Twitter is smart not to worry because they have a war chest of cash so as the saying goes “you can’t go out of business with money in the bank”.. The issue for twitter is to be relevant and continue to innovate on the user experience side .. John B talks about that real time conversational piece.

    Nice post Mark. My Angle is that twitter needs to get to at least 20m active per day to be the huge hit. If I were Google or Yahoo I’d have a clone up and running immediately.. then position Twitter as a cult of early adopters.

    more from siliconANGLE – Angle on Tech a new group blog..

    /www.siliconangle.com/uncategorized/flipside-john-battelle-says-google-needs-twitter

  39. I really would not like Google to buy Twitter, yes they would make some tweeks that would look neet and bs…but! Remember that probably after 1 year they would add AD’s , Special Accounts (trying @Ev to admit that.) are “kind of” already in place.

    I mean sooner or later this year they will have to do something.

    Great post btw

  40. JohnONolan says:

    Awsome article! I can’t say I’m massively enthusiastic about the prospect – just look what happened to FeedBurner for example, but I see your point. Interesting times ahead for sure.

  41. Here’s another story close to yours I did a couple of weeks ago. http://searchenginewatch.com/3632795

    If Google were to buy Twitter I hope they are smart enough to not intrude to deeply into the current system and just add a tab for search.

  42. Bertil Hatt says:

    I have to say John that I used to remember you as the guy who popularized the idea that Google owned a “data base of intentions” — and that idea isn’t less true today, although less visible. It might offer a challenge to your prediction.

    Twitterers don’t have an explicit audience (neither do bloggers) and this can cause some grief (see Dave Winer’s recent post on being insensivite http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/02/25/youreBeingInsensitive.html). Hashtags try to resolve this, but they aren’t convenient: they only work for simple and exclusive context (events) and no client resolve the problem of filtering the firehose from one of your relative when he sits at the #Knit-Conf (and letting him back on afterwards). More generally, it’s hard and tedious to sort every blurb with exhaustive tags.

    The twitterers that follow you might be able to add those afterwards, but no-one seems to star anything (and no client seems to care either).

    Google (or Facebook) seems far more able to attribute a raw string of text to the user who’ll speak the same language, thing it’s relevant, etc.

  43. nmw says:

    Seems like you pressed the right button with this post! ;D

    I’ve been trying out @Ginx – it has revived some twitter features (which twitter stopped before you started using twitter – like being able to see a user’s “twitter stream” the way they see it (so-called “with friends” view).

    They’re also testing out some other stuff, but of course ginx is not called “twitter” (and as we get close and closer to web 4.6, we will see more and more of the Wisdom of the language taking hold — see http://gaggle.info/miscellaneous/articles/wisdom-of-the-language ;).

    As I wrote as reply to @GuyKawasaki’s question (“Twitter as a threat to Google?”): “the threat goes like this: people no longer use Google (except novices/newbies who search for brands)”

    :) nmw

  44. Patrick says:

    Call me crazy but I think Twitter should focus on contructive ways to monetize itself. Crawl a bit, or at least jog rather than sprinting for the immediate cashout. In my opinion Google killed Youtube or at least made it hopelessly stale.

    @patrickboegel

  45. Alex Iskold says:

    John,

    I’ve been thinking and talking to people about this for a couple weeks as well. I agree, I think that Twitter is becoming a mega hit on the size of YouTube.

    What folks don’t understand is that YouTube and Twitter are fundamental inventions, new forms and new mediums that are valued at a much higher price than just improvements to previous software.

    In terms of who needs to own Twitter, I think that MSFT and YHOO need it more than GOOG, because, yes, it would be nice for GOOG to have it, but it is still super strong without it.

    To me the question of how Twitter will be monetized, particularly with ads is still at large. Just like ads might not work on FB, they might not work on Twitter.

    Still, just because it has got so much momentum and is so cool and so innovative it is worth a huge amounts of $$ to GOOG or anyone else.

  46. Vinicius Lacerda says:

    !!!!!!!!!!!!1

  47. Robert Reich says:

    Openness plays a very interesting part of this puzzle as well. Twitter has chosen to be open for the most part, which is why summize was able to create a better twitter search engine than twitter.

    If acquired by a large competitor and made private it would destroy one of its most devoted followings, the developer community. If left public how is it any different than what we have today?

    Google is already indexing twitters content, selling ads against it, and trying to bend it to match its current algorithms, remember the no follow scandal of last year. The signal being generated by the twitterverse is interesting to a search engine, but I am curious how different.

    The big question for me, are twitter or real time updates such a different signal that today’s method of crawling and ranking does not scale? If this is the case, than I bet the money is in a new search algorithm, rather than the coolness of the signal.

  48. Very thoughtful of everyone in this posting. You have to just love entrepreneurs. Go John, Go!

  49. Jeff Cohen says:

    Definitely agree that Google’s interest in Twitter is not in its technology, service or community, but in growing its arena of search to areas were not previously thought of as search.

    Anyone change their Firefox search box from Google to Twitter Search yet? There’s a plugin for that.

  50. I’m agree with Garrick Schmitt: “Twitter is also a threat to FeedBurner as well”, and with John too…I think that Twitter is the new target of Google..

    Saludos..:)

  51. Allen Weiss says:

    Has there ever been any discussion about the basic idea of whether Twitter makes economic sense to Google..meaning, will it add any income to Google? Maybe I’m missing something here, but I thought business had something to do with income, or at least some basic sense as to how income might arise in the future. So far, I’ve read very little about viable income streams that even come vaguely close to what is being discussed as the value of the business.

  52. Ryan says:

    It’s remarkable how quickly twitter has grown. It should be interesting to see how this shakes out as it is such a valuable entity.
    Ryan

  53. dskaletsky says:

    Great point about the YouTube comparison. We’ve wrote about Twitter as a search tool earlier this week! Glad to see someone else is in agreement.

    http://traackr.com/blog/?p=122

  54. Scott Elkin says:

    What if twitter blocked google’s spiders? That could be a huge blow to them in the coming years.

  55. Internet says:

    All right, I guess I’ll lead the other side of this argument. I’m a very big fan of Twitter and strongly believe they will find their way to revenue and profitability. But this won’t happen with Search.
    Two main reasons for this:
    1- Search is complex and costly – Twitter doesn’t have the resources to compete there.
    2- Search is based on indexing ubiquitous content. Twitter can’t even index its own content (if you want to find tweets, you’re already better off looking for them on Google than Twitter).
    Now, there is something to be said about Twitter searches as the emergence of a different type of searches, using users collective intelligence to find answers rather than the robustness and reliability of a Google search.
    But this is a different discussion altogether…

  56. TrackerMo says:

    The real question is, with the recent anti-trust accusations being slung in Google’s way, can it afford to snatch up yet another obvious winner on the internet.

    Or, perhaps, IS it guilty of anti-trust activity?

  57. Santiaggo says:

    By coincidence, I used search.twitter.com for the first time. I immediately found the owner of a company I want to work for and am following him now. Plus I found out that he lives in my neighborhood… and I know what he looks like. Not a stalker but I will chat him up at the local deli, given the chance.

    The point is that the info was super current and handy. No stale url to fumble with and click on.

    In my mind, whoever owns the twitter search, holds the key to the universe.

    @Santiaggo (Brightkite.com)

  58. twat says:

    only idiots who waste their worthless time on twitter actually think its of any value.
    In real life its like a popular IRC network, only worth anything to its few users

  59. Ted says:

    What a miserable world we live in, when Twitter is a threat to anything. What a horrible, sadistic world we live in, when Twitter is actually used by anybody.

  60. Anti-twatter says:

    only idiots who waste their worthless time making comments on articles about twitter actually think their opinion is of any value.

    BOOYAH! I have now dissed both “twat” and myself in one post. But it took 219 characters.

  61. AH says:

    This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. I can explain to my grandparents why youtube is neat, and they laugh when man gets hit in groin with football. Stating that “conversational search is the most important thing” implies that the people advertisers want to reach are unemployed nerds telling the world they just finished dinner and are about to unload #2. I can see the ad pitch now: millions of users will converge on the most popular tweets, with misinformation about plane crashes or the bowel movements of the rich and famous.

    Oh wait, that’s a stupid business plan. I am sure someone will buy twitter. But last I checked, the Googles and Yahoos of the world are losing money hand over first. Just the perfect environment to spend hundreds of millions of dollars are a niche technology. Best for the shareholders, you know.

    YouTube, on the other hand, it was easy to see how it would make money. Man getting hit in groin with football is simply always funny.

  62. Is twitter actually for sale and what is their advantage -they have good funding and eventually can add more streams and create content by interest! http://marshalsandler.com/2009/03/twitter-youtube-john-battelles-searchblog/ I think even with folks to who don’t like twitter they might just make it HEH

  63. Matthew Wanderer says:

    T is currently valued at $250m. T declined $500m from FB. I have to assume that G’s offer, should you be on the right track, might be in the $750m-$1b range.

    If true, I would LOVE to see the spreadsheet that justifies $1b for Twitter. 10b +/- clickthroughs before making a dime on T?

  64. Joey Sichol says:

    Why in the world would google want to waste money on Twitter? Why don’t they use their hordes of engineers (and money) to make something…better? It shouldn’t be hard to process tweets or anytime of instant message into the google “news” or “blogs” page. Twitter just took the status line off of facebook and based a whole service around it. Why couldn’t facebook just turn their status updates into a twitter-like service?

    Maybe google’s servers can keep Twitter from going down on a near daily basis…

    Whoever owns twitter is a MORON for not selling, IF he was really offered $500 million…

    Twitter is no where near replacing my RSS feeds and, after trying to follow twitter during the Mumbai attacks, showed how worthless it is for ‘real’ news. Not everyone is down with LEET speak and text messaging abbreviations.

    Within the past week, The Daily Show and Doonesbury have been clowning on Twitter. That is the modern day equivalent of “jumping the shark.”

    Sorry, twits. Let’s quit wasting with the twitter circle-jerk and get on to the next REAL big thing…

  65. Nuno Andrade says:

    There is no reason why Twitter will sell to Google.

    Twitter is going to monetize search the same way Google monetized search. They are going to charge advertisers to send little DM’s to people who mention things related to their line of business. For example, I’m a furniture vendor, if someone says they need to buy furniture, I want to advertise to that person. Arguably, that person is further along in the conversion cycle than someone performing a search for “furniture” on Google. For more on “Twitter Paid Search,” see my blog entry: http://inside.nikkoshops.com/twitter-is-the-next-paid-search-venue/.

    Why would Twitter sell if they stand to make just a much money from advertising as Google does?

  66. Twitter Nut says:

    So Twitter is awesome for Taking traffic to your website . It is very
    simple to setup and it’s a fun positive way to keep in contact with
    people. To get more followers on twitter check out this amazing
    tool, Twitter Traffic Machine.

  67. Jimmy Sou says:

    One thing that is weird though is, as far as I know, Twitter is still losing money. You would think with so many people usong Twitter they could come up with some way to turn a profit. It must be a geek thing.

  68. Poison Ville says:

    Thanks you veru much John!

    I think your side note is more important to your post than you may be letting on. To my mind, this prequalifying you’ve claimed you’d do on Twitter (if only they’d allow you to direct message non-following folks) is something you could already do on your own. I mean, how many people tweet without some other major online presence? If you’d really be willing to spend the time prequalifying these folks on Twitter, then I’d bet you’d also be willing to Google them and find either their direct email address, their blog (with commenting open!), or other useful contact information. And, so, you would contact them there. I imagine you’re perhaps not entirely genuine when you suggest that you’d spend real time prequalifying customers…perhaps you just know, as per your side note, that it’d be something that would come along with Twitter’s acceptance of commercial contact– specifically that Twitter would offer some program where they offer screened and directed advertising the way Google Ads does.

  69. Northface Jackets says:

    Our first fitted must is the waist-cinching belt. Even rugged outdoor companies have started to add this fashionable feature to the mid-section of The North face Gore Tex Jacket Blue – Women’s NO.00085 selection. The belt on The North Face’s ‘Greenland’ winter jacket adds a nice tailored look to an otherwise bulky jacket, softening the line and creating a feminine silhouette.
    Of course we also want you to be fashionable in The North face Gore Tex Jacket Pink – Women’s NO.00213! There are ways to avoid looking like a bloated snowman while still keeping toasty and cozy underneath a substantial outer layer.

    Ski jackets for ladies should come in a great deal of designs and styles, like any other kind of apparels you wear, so that you can choose from a wide collection. Down is the soft, fluffy under-feathering of all waterfowl, including geese and ducks. In The North face Apex Bionic Jacket – Women’s NO.00035, you can find this material easily. The variety of coats for ladies is rather expensive so finding the perfect one can take a bit of looking.

    Northface Jackets