Dave Lee / jBlog

Fresh ideas for online journalism

Archive for the ‘Social Networking’ category

Sir John Bond: The man who paid £600 to edit his Wikipedia entry

March 10th, 2011

Oh my.

There’s a lot to be said about Sir David Tang’s ICorrect. Sky have given the background. It’s a new website which invites celebrities and other public figures to, the creator says, “correct permanently any lies, misinformation and misrepresentations that permeate in cyberspace”.

Users can sign up, bring attention to a mistake and then write their side of the story alongside it. This is important, they say, as “the likes of Wikipedia and Google searches consist entirely of hearsays”. Apparently, ICorrect lets users permanently “correct” these sites.

That’s an odd claim. It does nothing to change the websites in question, and it comes at an extortionate price: £600 a year, or £3,100 if you’re a company.

Amazingly, it seems to boast top names like Michael Caine, Naomi Campbell and Cherie Blair.

It’s probably the greatest get rich quick scheme I’ve ever come across – an inkling which was confirmed with this priceless correction from Sir John Bond, the chairman of communications giant Vodafone:

I wish to correct my entry in Wikipedia. I was born on 24 July 1941. I am not The Honourable. I joined The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation at the age of 19, not 21. I have not worked in the Middle East. I was posted to New York, not Buffalo. I spent one year in the USA as an English-Speaking Union scholarship student at Cate School, near Santa Barbara, California, not two years.

Incredible. £600 to correct a mistake on a freely-editable online encyclopedia. Hilariously, the Wikipedia entry is still wrong.

Tell you what, celebs, I’ll charge you £300 for five years to write your corrections to the international media in the comments of this post. Knock yourself out.

13 comments »

Posted in Comment, Multimedia, Newspapers, Social Networking, The Future, The Web

Five reasons why Facebook Credits will save newspapers

December 6th, 2010

First things first, I hate seeing the phrase “can save newspapers” thrown around all over the shop whenever a new techy idea comes out.

But, chances are you’ve found this via Twitter and, if you’re anything like me, seeing someone claim they know what will save newspapers is enough to make you click just so you can tell me why I’m so very wrong. Go ahead.

This post is going to simply outline what I think is a massive development for the potential of selling content on the web.

For years, the industry in-joke has been this formula for online publishing success:

1. Publish content
2. Get traffic
3. ????
4. Profit!

Hopefully the following points can explain why I think the ‘????’ in that horrid equation is now obvious: Facebook Credits.

Before we begin, let me add that I’m not proposing all newspapers become Facebook apps instead of standalone sites. Rather, in a similar way to the ‘Like’ button that is appearing all over, it should be a system which is implemented neatly with the individual sites.

1. Social gaming is the new crossword puzzle – and it’s worth $6bn worldwide

Last year, report the NYTimes, the Daily Mail made £12 million through digital content revenues. Meanwhile, Zynga – the company responsible for Farmville – is set to net $500 million from sales of virtual goods.

Virtual goods are every business’ dream. Imagine being able to sell something that essentially doesn’t actually exist. Take roses, for example. Josh Halliday reports in the Guardian that Flirtomatic, a social network which is barely even heard of, sold more virtual roses last year than Interflora sold real ones.

Not only that, but it convinced 100,000 people to pay to ‘attend’ a virtual fireworks night.

But what does this have to do with newspapers? An awful lot.

Jim Tucker, a very good friend and former editor of a national newspaper in New Zealand, once told me about a cunning experiment he devised when he first took over as editor at a newspaper. He took his staff to the streets to find out why they buy the paper. If they said they loved the features, they could put more money into it. If it was more sport they craved, then at least now they’d know.

What did they find? Crossword lovers. Serious crossword lovers. You see, a lot of people who bought the newspaper didn’t give two hoots about the news but, once their beloved crossword was done, they’d give the rest of the paper a read. It was a model that suited everyone, even if it did shatter the egos of Jim and his staff.

Social gaming is the new crossword.

Am I telling everyone that newspapers need to start deploying farm-based games across their sites? No, don’t be silly. What I am saying is that people’s desire to have Facebook Credits in order to play online games is, for editors, a gift from the gods. Suddenly, we’ve got millions of people – young people, don’t forget – who have credits. Credits which they didn’t buy to read news but, now they’ve got them won’t give much thought to spending a couple on content.

The newspaper would, on current rates (dictated by Facebook), take 70% of each credit’s monetary value.

I believe, ladies and gents, that’s what we call a business model.

2. No self-assembly required: let Zuckerberg worry about it

A little while ago, I blogged this:

When you by The Times, do you have to go to a special newsagent which just sells that paper? Do you then have to cross the road to get the Telegraph? No.

My point then was that we need a central payment system which deals with every newspaper and content provider on earth. Problem is, who exactly would do it? If NewsCorp tried, there’s no way the other papers would collectively think “Oh, Rupert’s got a good idea…” and sign up.

But it needed to happen, and Facebook has got there first. This is good for newspapers. Think about The Times, and the money spent on the following:

Designing, developing and implementing the paywall software (and the new look site to put it all on)
Setting up the systems needed to securely and reliably handle the influx of sensitive data now coming their way
Establishing a new customer services team to handle queries (“It doesn’t work on my computer”,”I want my money back” and so on)

I’m sure that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If you use Facebook as your model you can just, erm, sign up. As Gordon Ramsey would probably say, “Payments: done.”

3. Wall? What wall? It may be paid-for, but it’s certainly not hidden

One of the criticisms levelled at The Times is that, due to the paywall, their content is hidden. You may be reading it, but you can’t share it with your friends or colleagues.

Potential customers can’t get to the opinion section of The Times’ site – so it would be a very trusting person indeed who’d take a risk on it, even if it is just a quid. No surprise, then, to see many of The Times’ opinion writers gleefully sharing their links on Twitter when the paywall momentarily stopped working.

With Facebook Credits, the potential to have the best of both worlds is a real possibility. Would “Dave Lee just bought Charlie Brooker’s latest column from the Guardian” look so out of place on your Facebook feed? The entry would have quick, enticing kicker which could potentially lure in a few extra punters.

If a friend of mine pops in to leave a comment – something along the lines of “I loved this, one of Charlie’s best!” – the power of social recommendation will then transform into profits.

Where with The Times you’re presented with a locked door, by using a payment system so tightly incorporated with the world’s dominant social network, you’re working behind a pay window, not a wall.

4. Your mum could do it

I’m not insulting your mum. But I do know she’s statistically unlikely to be able to get her head round something like a pay wall. Or rather, she’d be put off by the technical oddity of it all that she’d be reluctant to even try.

As a person who has their very own mother, I know that the less computer-literate out there want things to be as simple as possible.

Simplicity, in this case, means familiar. It means “set up by my son so I can use it from now on”.

Facebook Credits are going on sale in Tesco. Even if you’re not convinced in my argument so far, that move by the supermarket giant should at least tell you a little bit about why this is going to be massive. Get your head round that for a moment: Tesco expect people to physically go to a shop, buy an actual product (a voucher) and then take it home to buy something virtual.

If someone like my Mum, or my Dad, or even my newspaper loving Nan knows that she can get all the great stuff on her computer just by popping to the shops to get it, they will. Trust me, buying vouchers to use online from the local supermarket is much less hassle for some people than filling in an online form. To you and I it may seem absurd, but I’m right.

And that’s before you get into the promotional possibilities. Every time you spend £20 or more on petrol you get 100 clubcard points and… some Facebook Credits? Automatically deposited into your account?

The disconnection between all our content providers mean this couldn’t happen now. “Spend £10 on beans and get a free day’s trial on The Times’ new website” sounds dull and, ironically, as old media as getting a free CD-ROM on the front of a mag.

Facebook Credits being in Tesco offers the first real breakthrough in which the concept of online currency – something to buy quality goods with online – can hit the mainstream.

5. Selectivity breeds success – without subscription, you can concentrate on added-value

It could be argued that if the Guardian had a paywall, they wouldn’t have got the Wikileaks scoop. Its openness (and political stance, of course), spurs much of its success.

But with Facebook Credits, the Guardian could use these big, unique moments to earn money without killing their audience numbers.

Asking people to pay for hard news is a bad idea, and one that will fail. Information wants to be free, and it always will be. But while you wouldn’t ask someone to pay for this: WikiLeaks cables claim al-Jazeera changed coverage to suit Qatari foreign policy, would it be so unreasonable to ask for a few credits for added value like this: US embassy cables: browse the database? Or perhaps this: Julian Assange answers your questions?

It’s this judgement that makes the difference for me when it comes to successfully encouraging people to pay. Facebook Credits – by nature of being a one-off micropayment – would allow editors to establish which stories would be paid-for, and which ones wouldn’t.

It’s a freedom which would herald the birth of quality, multimedia journalism to our media industry. An in-depth investigation, for the first time in the history of online journalism, would become more profitable than SEO-friendly stories about celebrities. Who doesn’t like the sound of that?

23 comments »

Posted in Five Things, Multimedia, New Zealand, Newspapers, Social Networking, The Future, The Web

Tags: credits facebook guardian micropayments payment rupert murdoch the times

The greatness of social media (with the help of 8 Minute Abs)

June 1st, 2009

If you read media blogs in order to learn something new, or find the next big thing, then I’d advise you skip this post. It won’t be worth it.

What I’m about to tell you is neither new or surprising. We all know about it. But, just as my Dad is often compelled to marvel at the mobile telephone, I often find myself thinking “Wow. Social media really very clever”.

The last time it happened was at Euston Station. Or to be a little more accurate, a couple of days after a trip to Euston Station. Read that little anecdote here.

Moving on. Readers, I’m getting a little fat. Since passing my driving test, and getting a job, I’ve spent more time sat on my arse than ever. As a result, I’ve got a bit porky. Now I know what you’re thinking — “Blogger in overweight shocker” — but I don’t like to be a bloater.

So I’ve taken a few measures to sort this out. First: lots of walking. Second: LESS CHIPS. Third: 8 Minute Abs.

8 Minute Abs, you ask? Ah! It’s my secret weapon:

Cheesier than a Westlife ballad. But I tell you what — it’s a bloody good workout. So there’s social media triumph number 1: the fact I found it in the first place after searching for ‘fitness’.

Triumph number 2: thanks to the ‘Related videos’ I now know that as well as 8 Minute Abs, there is 8 Minute Arms, 8 Minute Legs and a few others. Great! I’m sticking to the abs right now, but boy, can’t wait to see what the cool fella has in store for me next.

And he is a cool fella indeed. How do I know? Well, another user has posted this little chat with him on YouTube too.

But here’s where the fun begins. A search on YT for 8 Minute Abs brings up a fans. A couple of remixes — this is my favourite — and then this gem:

Haha! Now, those folk on the floor aren’t just a bunch of fatties. How dare you! They’re actually in a band called Combichrist. Of course, at this point I could take the route into social media and find out all about Combichrist. But let’s stick with abs for a time being.

Here’s Rachel, doing the routine, filmed by, I assume, her college roommate. Not the best video you’ll ever see, but check out those comments! Look who it is! It’s THE BLOKE IN THE CLIP. AHHHHHHHH!! I haven’t been this excited since I bumped into Bill Bailey in a lift the other week.

And here’s a — ohhhh! — clip of a bloke who — ohhhh! – is completely — ohhhh! — off his — ohhhhh! — face (confused? Just watch the clip). In an unexpected twist, turns out he’s a born again Christian.

Then on to Facebook. There are, as expected, tons of groups celebrating the brilliance of the clip. And with Twitter I find another load of people sharing their enjoyment too.

The quesiton is whether all this extra knowledge is pointless. Well I’d argue it isn’t. Through social media I’ve not only found the clip, but I’ve found tips and information about it and I’ve found a community (yes, it’s a community) of people who appreciate it like I do.

I quite like that. If the man in the video, Jaime Brenkus, was talking to social media, I’m sure he’d say: “Woo, you’re doing a great job!”

1 comment »

Posted in Comment, Social Networking, The Web

Tags: 8 minute abs combichrist jaime brenkus workout youtube

The passion press: a business model?

May 26th, 2009

I’ve been all about micropayments lately — but here’s another idea to chew over.

I’m going to call it the “got any spare change guv’nor?” approach. It works, consistently, for Wikipedia — but for how long we don’t know. (Side note: Is ‘Ars Technica’ actually pronounced, y’know, ‘arse’? Works for me.)

The other night I got an email from Simon Owens, a former newspaper hack and now social media-y kinda guy. He shared his post about ‘Paste’ magazine, an independent music magzine in the States:

“We needed some cash,” Purdy told me. “So we had always known that if we ever had to, we could go to our readers. A lot of them tell us — especially in the last few months, because they’re not dumb, they know what’s going on in the economy — they’ve written us and said, ‘hey, if things ever get rough on Paste, make sure you ask us for help,’ and so we took them seriously. We have a special relationship with out readers.

Woah — how many magazines could say that with a straight face?

But it got me thinking — is the passion press the ultimate business model? I donated money — a tiny amount, but an amount nonetheless — to Wikipedia when I was studying. Why? Because I couldn’t live without it. Are there magazines you couldn’t live without? Possibly not — but there’s probably a website out there that you love.

Personally, if they asked, I’d donate money to When Saturday Comes, the brilliant football magazine which, I’m delighted to say, I now write for. Before the days of WordPress.com, I’d have winged a few quid to WordPress if they’d really needed it. After all — I owe much of my career to this simple yet powerful software.

Twitter? Perhaps. Facebook, no, not now. There’s a point, I guess, when a site lifts itself away from the community and into the hands of corporations — and Facebook’s time has long gone.

But how’s that for a business model? Sites struggle on with advertising revenue — but if they need it, readers trump up and sort them out. Are there any magazines you’d donate money to in order to keep them alive?

6 comments »

Posted in Comment, Social Networking, The Future, The Web

Tags: donations magazines simon owens wikipedia

20 practical and innovative ways to introduce micropayments for newspapers

May 15th, 2009

A couple of posts ago, while pondering micropayments, I wrote “If my time at the BBC has taught me anything, it’s that ideas are worthless — it’s working examples that really get you somewhere”. Since then, a friend emailed me, saying that she thinks the problem with micropayments is that people don’t know see how they fit in. They don’t see how people — the punters — will react to suddenly being told to pay for something that used to be free.

I believe it can be done.

Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

It’s not a case of just throwing up subscription walls, slapping readers in the face with a log-in screen that says “Join now and get 40% off at Debenhams”. We need to be inventive. Considering how creative journalism is, the lack of creative thinking with payments (and the web in general) is baffling. What are we afraid of? Innovation? Profit?

So I’d like to get the ball rolling. Here are 20 suggestions for adding micropayments to a newspaper website. The ideas cover promotion, implementation and, for want of a better phrase, damange limitation. I’m going to divide them up into categories depending on the ‘type’ of person.

Mr Jones the Newspaper Buyer, 53

1. Mr Jones appreciates online treats after buying his newspaper

Mr Jones goes out and buys The Times. He spends 90p. Mr Jones reads The Times on his way to work, and stuffs it in his bag when he’s done. At work, he checks the newspaper online; but hang on — he can’t access the articles. Under the new micropayment scheme he’s forced to pay again. Right? Wrong. In Mr Jones’ paper, he has a voucher. On that voucher is a unique code that can be used once — and only once — to access the day’s content online. He can do this for just 30p — that’s a third of the normal price. For £1.20, Mr Jones has got the print product and all the additional online extras too. Mr Jones is happy.

2. Mr Jones wants to subscribe (Thank you Mr Jones!)

Subscriptions are on the decline, yes, but there are still core subscription readers who will be around for some while yet. Mr Jones is one of them. If he wanted to subscribe to The Times he would have to pay £5.50 per week. Mr Jones should be offered the newspaper plus all the brilliant web content for £6.50 a week. Five days of web goodness for just £1. “That’s lovely,” says Mr Jones.

3. If there’s one thing Mr Jones enjoys more than cricket, it’s reading about cricket

It’s test match season — and if there’s one thing Mr Jones loves, it’s settling down to watch the days play at Lords. In a perfect world, he’d be able to spend his days watching the willow. But sadly he has to resort to following the action online. No problem, though, because for £1, Mr Jones gets full coverage from the test: A column from Michael Atherton, a podcast with Geoffrey Boycott, an interactive scoreboard. Typical things like match reports and liveblogs will still be free — the casual cricket fan won’t pay. But for people like Mr Jones, all this great coverage is really enjoyable.

4. Mr Jones is interested in politics

Between work, cricket and spending time with his lovely wife, Mr Jones doesn’t have much time for anything else. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to know what’s going on in the world of politics. For 50p a week, The Times will send him a politics digest t0 his inbox once a day from their team at Westminster. If he likes it, he can subscribe for £1.50 a month — saving 50p as he goes.

5. Mr Jones is delighted with his theatre vouchers, and he knows which show to see

So many shows, so little time. Or maybe, so little money. The good news for Mr Jones is that to go alongside the micropayment relaunch, The Times has also launched its special interactive theatre guide. Mr Jones knows what’s on, at what time, and how good it is. The guide costs 50p per week — but at the end of each month he’ll get some vouchers to print off and enjoy. Money well spent Mr Jones!

Pete the student, 20

6. Pete gets £5 of free credit every month

Pete may be eating moudly bread and sleeping in grubby sheets, but he still likes to keep up to date. Handy, then, that he gets £5 free credit to spend on newspapers online each month. He can spend it as he chooses. On any newspaper. Just one of the perks of being a National Union of Students member.

7. Pete thinks Flight of the Conchords are awesome

Which means he is pleased to discover the feature about the new series on the website. He reads it. It’s free. But for an exclusive audio clip of Bret and Jemaine talking about the show, he can pay 20p. If Bret and Jemaine are feeling exceedingly generous, their live track will cost Pete 50p — but he can download it to keep.

8. Pete really loves music

Pete is getting fed up of having to buy clips from his favourite bands individually each time. Those 50p installments soon add up for him. For £5 a month, Pete can download clips, listen to podcasts, see exclusive video interviews on all all online newspaper sites. Not just one. The income is distributed to newspapers depending on which content he chooses.

9. Pete supports Chelsea

Don’t blame Pete, it’s not his fault. But we shouldn’t begrudge him the enjoyment of knowing about his club. Mr Jones subscribed to the test match, but Pete just wants to know about Chelsea. That’ll cost him 80p a week. For that money he’ll get daily news digests, exclusive interviews, features, fan community involvement: all sorts.

Now while Pete is a bit of a grubby glory hunter, he still follows his local team: Shrewsbury Town. He can follow them as well and, because he already subscribes to Chelsea, the second team only costs him 20p per week.

10. Pete wants to share his favourite articles with his friends

Chelsea thump Aston Villa 4-0? Well we have some celebrating to do! Pete can send the interview with 4 goal hero Didier Drogba to his Chelsea-supporting pal Dean. Dean, subsequently, signs up to the newspaper service. “How does this work then?” he asks.

11. It’s dissertation time — get the archive out!

If Pete’s lucky, his university will give him access to Lexis Nexis, a brilliant archive of newspaper articles. Problem is, not all newspapers are included. Searching is tricky, and it can be quite buggy. For £5 — a one off, he won’t use it again — he has full access to the online and offline archives for all UK newspapers (or, indeed, the world’s newspapers!). If he’s struggling, all consecutive weeks of archive use will just cost him an extra quid. Pete is thankful — his dissertation is bloody brilliant.

Karen the stay-at-home mum, 35

12. Karen cares about her childrens’ education…

Karen wants to know everything there is to know about schooling and education. She wants league tables, inspection reports and real-life case studies. Does she have time to sift through the paper every day? No way! For £1 a week, Karen recieves a weekly digest of the important stories of the week in education. If she buys a newspaper on Sunday, she can use a voucher to get this digest for 50p. Again, if she subscribes for a week, she gets a discount.

13. …But that’s not all she’s in to

Education is important, yes, but Karen would get bored (and probably quite depressed). So as part of a bundle offer (think Sky subscription packages) Karen can choose two other sectors to get digests for — for just £1.50 per week. That’s less than half price!

14. Loose Women — let’s go online

(for my non-UK readers, Loose Women is a daytime chat show with a panel of four or so middle-aged women.)

Karen likes to get right stuck in with Loose Women when it’s on. Sure, they’re whiny, and she can’t stand one of them, but she likes the relevance and indeed the fun the show brings. For 20p, Karen can join in with the online webchat each day. She chats about the issues covered in the show and has fun with other likeminded people, all from the comfort of her home.

15. Karen is an avid reader, but hasn’t got time for a book club

Before they moved onto that strange digital channel, Karen really loved the Richard and Judy book club. It made the tricky task of picking the wheat from the chaff much easier. For £1 a week, Karen can subscribe to the newspaper book club. The literary editor will preside over the suggestions, and subscribers will get money off the featured titles. Every week, a distinguished author will be on hand with interviews, podcasts or webchats.

Phil the news junkie, 26

16. Phil wants to be up-to-date, all the time

Phil can’t get enough news. He always likes to be the first to know. He follows all the social media services, but what he’d really appreciate is a human filter. For £1 a week, Phil gets access to the human-powered breaking news wire. The wire editor’s job is to filter meaningful tweets, images, links and news snippets and bring them to Phil. The editor is doing the leg work so Phil doesn’t have to.

17. Phil knows he is likely to spend a lot online, so he deserves bulk discounts

Each month, Phil is spending around £20 on micropayments. That sure is a lot! His loyalty should be rewarded. If he adds his newspaper credit in chunks of £20, he gets £5, absolutely free.

18. Phil treats his newspaper credits like an Oyster Card

(For non-UK readers, an ‘Oyster Card’ is a pre-pay card for London transport)

If you spend more than a certain amount on an Oyster Card in one single day, any trips for the rest of that day are included in that price. Nifty. Likewise, when Phil spends a lot of time reading one particular newspaper, he could end up spending the same amount as the cover price. If this is to happen, Phil automatically unlocks the rest of the ‘paid’ content for that day. Lucky Phil!

19. Phil spends SO much, he’s now a priority member

Phil is really valued by newspapers. He spends a lot. So, whenever newspapers are promoting a special event, or book, or film… Phil is the first to know. And Phil gets first refusal.

20. Phil knows a big story when he sees one

Phil is shocked at the recent revelations revealed by the Daily Telegraph about MPs expenses. He wants to know everything about it. Fortunately, for £1.50, Phil has access to all articles relating to the expenses issue. All analysis, commentary and opinion is free for him to enjoy and digest.

–

Additional notes

Are these ideas the finished product? No, clearly not. But from what I can find its a pretty extensive bunch of thoughts – and I’d love to see what others can come up with too.

The important bit: What we DON’T charge for

I’m going to try and nip one of the inevitable criticisms of these ideas in the bud straight away. “Why would you pay if you can get the news somewhere else?” Simple: Because what we’re charging for will be unique. You don’t charge for the story — you charge for its valuable extras. You don’t charge for the written interview, you charge for the associated audio clip. In other words, if you site is the only place you can get this information, then that’s when you can charge.

Easy-to-remember rule: If it would go on the Google News frontpage, it should be free.

We also need to know how sites adopting micropayments would fit into the link economy. In particular, what do we do with blogs? Simple: we leave them as they are. Blogs can act as traffic vacuums. By linking here and there, appearing on feeds, getting involved, blogs can keep newspapers involved socially, while at the same time drawing new readers to the paid-for content.

Outdated ideas we need to dismiss

The notion of ‘all or nothing’ subscription walls is outdated and, quite frankly, ridiculous. When someone clicks on an article and is greeted with a message saying they must take out a monthly subscription, their mental response is “But I only wanted to read that one article!”. Just like small top-ups brought mobile to the masses, micropayments can bring paid online content to the masses too.

Loyalty in news no longer exists. If you think there is anyone out there who goes online, reads one source and one source only then you are deluded. Move on.

Crucial factors that must be in place

Do you go to a seperate newsagents each time you want to buy a different newspaper? Didn’t think so. They’re all in the same place, and all bought using the same currency. Let’s bring this way of thinking online. There must be one, and only one, system for paying for newspaper content online. You need to be able to sign in, and be signed in to every newspaper in the world. Only then can we succeed in monetizing the web.

18 comments »

Posted in Blogs, Comment, Newspapers, Social Networking, Sport, The Future, The Web

Tags: ideas micropayments oyster card subscriptions

Twitter to introduce paid pro accounts

March 26th, 2009

Dug away in an article about Twitter in the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Stone says Twitter recently hired a product manager to oversee the development of commercial accounts. The accounts would offer users more features in exchange for a fee, but Mr. Stone says Twitter hasn’t set a launch date for them.

So there we have it, then. The business model will be paid accounts. And maybe advertising too — who says there has to be just one way of making money? Right now it seems likely that those little text ads that have appeared in the top right corner of your Twitter homepage will soon be sold. Right now they’re up there for free — which I assume is part of an experiment into how many clickthroughs they can promote to potential partners.

But I sense advertising will be little more than a nice slice of the bigger pie: the pro accounts.

Offering special accounts to businesses is a way of making a shedload of cash while still managing to retain its massive userbase.

I wrote about what a pro account could involve a little while ago — and it seems like some of those predicitons are going to come true, namely this thought:

Say you’re a publisher. You want to reach people in as many ways as possible. Currently, you have to just hope they’re reading their feed and they spot you. How about, for a fee, Twitter gave you the ability to allow any user — not just those with Personal Premium accounts — to subscribe to SMS updates from your feed.

Your fee would depend on two things: How often you post, and how many people subscribe. In other words: how many texts are sent. In the same way that websites have to assess their bandwidth costs, Twitter publishers with Publisher Plus priveledges will be able to monitor their reach — upgrading if neccessary.

I also suggested a personal pro account — something I still feel would work. But, from a public relations point of view, Twitter are wise to begin by charging the rich people.

Since then, I’ve been thinking a little more about how Twitter can make money and, if they go ahead with pro accounts, what should be in them.

In my job as co-editor of the BBC Internet Blog, part of my day-to-day task is to monitor what is being said over social networks. Twitter being the most useful. To do this, we have a Pageflakes account which searches various terms like “BBC” or “iPlayer” and so on. I keep an eye on this.

A pro Twitter account should do this for me. It should allow me to track RT’s relating to the BBC. It should allow me to have a league table of most linked to sections of the BBC website. It should have a Tweetgrid-style interface built in to a pro account control panel which I could use to monitor things as I do now — without the need for Pageflakes.

The pro account should give me statistics for my Twitter feed. As a normal user, sometimes I get a flurry of follows during the day and I’m left asking them where they came from. Sometimes I get a reply, sometimes I don’t. Twitter should be able to tell me — if I was running a company I’d want to know if I was being followed as a result of negative or postive press.

But most importantly: a pro account holder should have the ability to send text messages to all their followers (if they opt-in, of course!). The value of that really cannot be understated.

Update:

More about the plans on Silicon Alley Insider:

Commercial entities like Whole Foods, Starbucks, Mission Pie, 52 Teas, JetBlue, even the Korean taco truck guy are all on Twitter—users and businesses alike are finding value.

Our question is, how can we help? What can Twitter offer for a fee that will improve the experience? Will it be account verification? Will it be lightweight analytics? Will there be opportunities for introducing customers to businesses on Twitter.

So many questions. But the key is to understand that Twitter will remain free for all to use—individuals and companies alike. We are thinking about simple business products that enhance and encourage what is already happening.

No comments »

Posted in Comment, Social Networking, The BBC, The Future, The Web

Tags: pro accounts tweetgrid twitter wall street journal

Is the BBC reporting on Twitter too much?

March 8th, 2009

In the last six months, thanks to a certain Stephen Fry, Twitter has catapulted from being a past-time restricted to, mainly, geeks and journalists into a mainstream hit.

It’s everywhere. On Thursday, freebie London mag Shortlist led with it on the cover, a magazine which generally tends to stick to top actors, sports people or beautiful women on their front page.

It’s also all over the BBC, as this Google search demonstrates. It appears some readers have had enough.

This post by Darren Waters on BBC News Technology dot.life blog fell onto the pointy end of the licence fee payer stick in the comments:

Here is a line-up of self-appointed ‘techies’, neither of whom can claim any real scientific or technological qualifications, who are being paid, with license fee-payer’s money, to inform us precisely how they waste our money.

Says one.

Any chance you could shut up about Twitter, and start to do some journalism for a change? For example, a half-decent investigation into Phorm and BT, or are you scared you might upset someone?

Says another. And one more:

You’re peddling the same opinion (note, not “story” or “news”) again and again – that Twitter is a journalism tool. We get that you believe that. Thanks for pointing it out. Repeatedly.#

It would be wrong to ignore their points (and indeed, I was surprised to learn when I joined, comments are taken very seriously at the Beeb. Pressure from readers via blogs really does make a difference here).

It’s easy to see their argument. If you don’t use the service, it must be a bit tiresome to see so much coverage on what is essentially one solitary website.

In comparison to other sites, though, the BBC is relatively Twitter-free. Darren Waters tweeted these figures a few moments ago:

Readers complain we talk about Twitter too much. BBCNews: 450 refs in 1 month. Guardian:1,700 Times.co.uk 4,500 NYimes 9,800.

And what if those nay-sayers are just, y’know, wrong? When BBC blogs (and most mainstream media blogs) first started out, the comments ranged from the crazy to the bored unemployed. But now their a little more diverse, and often raise points as well put as the original piece. I draw your attention to this (from the same entry):

It’s *really* nuts to complain that Twitter is just full of “mindless drivel”.

Twitter is a medium, not content.

Content is provided by human beings, not the medium itself.

Hence, if you’re reading drivel it’s because you’re talking to the wrong people. If you were at a party listening to a bunch of people stood around together and the conversation was rubbish, you’d drift away quietly and find some more interesting people to talk to.

This is like complaining that it’s the fault of “the telephone” that people ring you up and try and sell you double-glazing. Or putting your foot through the TV because you’re watching a rubbish programme on a crappy channel.

Twitter is an extremely powerful tool that enables conversations between lots of people simultaneously. That’s all. If you’re finding it tedious, follow some different tweeple.

Brilliant point, I’d say. Many of the readers that are anti-Twitter complain it is simply full of rubbish. The above comment deals with why that’s no reason to give up on it.

But we must consider this valid perspective too:

You see, conventional social discussion mediums such as email and SMS (used by the BBC, in this case, for the acquisition of public opinion on TV and radio channels, read out by presenters) are all regulated by international internet or phone network standards, none of which is protected or owned by a particular trademark or brand name – at least not one the BBC ever endorses. You can SMS a BBC TV or radio station with your opinions in numerous different ways, as you can also email from any domain or webmail package out there. It is transparent, free and bereft of any endorsement or brand advertising.

But Twitter is different. Twitter isn’t a standard or a protocol, it’s not regulated by any government or any international internet organisation. It’s a brand name. A trademark. A business. It is self-regulating and self-managing. And for the BBC to chime out messages, from the public writing on Twitter, to their audience via TV or radio, they are endorsing Twitter – simply by mentioning it to this audience.

I couldn’t possibly argue against this. He/she is right. We rarely say ‘micro-blogging’ is taking the country by storm, do we? We just say Twitter. But then why wouldn’t we? Micro-blogging, on the whole, isn’t doing all that well — Twitter is only popular choice. But it’s still a business which will, eventually, come to use its dominance for commercial gain. The BBC, in that respect at least, should be very careful.

But here’s the twist: I firmly believe Twitter is part of a communication revolution. It’s not just some little website.

Just like the telegram, the telephone and the email that came before it, Twitter is already changing how millions of people communicate.

Therefore, it’s the BBC’s duty to be on top of its every development. To not be would fail licence fee payers. Technological advances are never popular — even among technology readers. Scepticism runs wild: “Why do I need this?” is the common cry. But, I’d argue, it’s our job to hold onto a makeshift crystal ball. There are few tech journos who don’t think Twitter is a major player in the internet. I myself recently penned a piece assessing how Twitter can be right up there with Google in web search stakes — look out for that soon.

Whenever I think of sceptics, I think of two groups of people. The first I was reminded of a couple of days ago when I met a man who worked on the launch of bbc.co.uk. He told me that there was some opposition to the BBC using the internet at all. I wonder how those opposers feel now.

The second group was a bunch of people who said that the video phone was a pile of steaming proverbial. And they were right.

I’m not saying Twitter is as significant as the maturing of the internet. What I’m saying is that the principle behind Twitter is, despite its simplicity, a major shift in how the world interacts. A shift that should be covered, disected and scrutinised at every turn. Not only by the BBC, but by everyone.

18 comments »

Posted in Blogs, Comment, My Work, Social Networking, The BBC, The Future, The Web

Tags: bbc darren waters dot.life technology twitter