The Obsession With Twitter’s Business Model

Twitter’s venture capitalists say they are not worried about when the microblogging start-up will start making money. And why should they be? The techies in the blogosphere are taking care of that for them.

Twitter watchers are so obsessed with how the company will make a buck that they jump on every hint of a business plan and spread it across the Web.

AT&T March Tweetness A screen shot of MarchTweetness, which is sponsored by AT&T.

The latest is Federated Media’s venture to start Web sites that pull together tweets about a certain topic or by a select group of people. The online ad network is getting companies to sponsor the sites and will share the advertising revenue with Twitter. The first site was ExecTweets, a collection of tweets from executives, sponsored by Microsoft. The second, which went live Thursday morning, is MarchTweetness, with tweets about the March Madness basketball tournament and sponsored by AT&T.

The first site heralded blog headlines like “Twitters Sells an Ad!” and “The Business Model Begins.” Well, not exactly.

When I asked Biz Stone, a co-founder of Twitter, if this was Twitter’s first influx of revenue, he said no. Between the cut Twitter gets from Federated Media and the interest it earns off the money in the bank, he said, “Twitter does not have meaningful revenue.” (Still, the interest off the unspent millions of the $55 million Twitter has raised from venture capitalists could certainly pay for a few drinks.)

Twitter provides developers with free access to its platform and data. There are several thousand Twitter applications, some of which make money from advertising, none of which give Twitter a cut. Federated Media had no obligation to share, either. “They want to give us some of their money, which is nice of them,” Mr. Stone said.

“We wanted to work in an open, collaborative way,” said Matthew DiPietro, Federated Media’s marketing manager. (Disclosure: The New York Times Company was a seed investor in Federated Media.) Twitter’s executives gave input on the project and “it was only right that we share revenue with them,” he said. Universal McCann, Microsoft’s ad agency, is also working on the project.

For a couple of days, Twitter promoted ExecTweets in a small box near the top of Twitter’s home page. That was not tied to the money Twitter is receiving from the site, Mr. Stone said. He plans to feature different Twitter applications there each day as a way to promote the twitterverse.

As for a more official business plan and meaningful revenue, “We are not trying to be vague — we are still trying to figure that out,” Mr. Stone said. This month, Twitter hired its first staffer to focus on revenue. Anamitra Banerji, former director of ad product marketing and management at Yahoo, is researching how businesses use Twitter to figure out which new features they would find most valuable.

The team does not yet know what the paid service will include, but Mr. Stone said it was likely to offer things like analysis of the traffic to businesses’ Twitter profiles and verified accounts so customers know they are talking to the actual business. (That would help businesses avoid the Keith Olbermann mishap earlier this week. Mr. Olbermann named Twitter “the worst person in the world” for allowing a fake account under his name, but it turned out that MSNBC was running the account, unbeknownst to Mr. Olbermann, says Mr. Stone.)

Twitter’s investors are patient. “We are not worried about growing users, we’re not worried about monetization, we’re just worried about making a fantastic product,” said Todd Chaffee of Institutional Venture Partners, which participated in a $35 million investment round in February.

Evan Williams, Twitter’s chief executive and co-founder, prefers not to comment on business model plans at all because Twitter watchers get too carried away. “If I say any particular idea, it gets made too much of,” he said. “We think Twitter will make money. I think it will take some time to figure it out.”

Still, it seems that techies will not stop watching every move he makes for the faintest sign of revenue. Silicon Alley Insider is running a contest for readers to come up with a Twitter business plan. Earlier this month, the tech humor site BBspot published an article announcing premium Twitter accounts for businesses. The Eagle account, for $250 a month, got the business things like “1000 extra random followers,” “Twitter Concierge for Tweeting while user is asleep” and a fail whale tuxedo (the fail whale is the graphic that appears when Twitter isn’t working.)

Mr. Williams took the joke in stride. “I’m pretty sure it’s the Fail Whale tuxedo that will bring home the Benjamins,” he twittered.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

This is great. I can’t believe MSNBC let Keith do that piece without telling him that they set up the Twitter account for him. In case you missed the video of him calling Twitter the “worst person” you can see it here:
//gotchamedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/keith-olbermanns-fake-twitter-account.html

The success Twitter has acheived in terms of brand recognition, user base growth and even uptake by businesses wanting to integrate with the application, is without doubt very impressive. What leaves me sratching my head is how the venture capital firms are willing to invest over $55m into a product, albeit a very good one, that had no planned revenue model and still doesn’t. I question whether the VC’s will get the ROI they’re looking for…..of course they are banking on Twitter getting acquired at some ridiculously high multiple, but in today’s economic climate the focus on business fundamentals is greater than ever before and it’s going to take someone very brave to pay out the sort of money that might have been achieved 24 months ago. Show me how you’re going to monetize the user base and all that valuable unstructued data and I’ll become a believer……

It is so wonderful to see how the traditional business model breaks down when applied to the internet. Peoples assumption that information and all the products derived should be free, clashes with the people that produce and package information profit aims. While Ads on websites undermine the integrity of the product and dissuades users, they have been the only way of making a profit. Furthermore, revenue from ads are only the tip of the iceberg and the potential for profit still remains unscathed. But specifically the issue, i believe, remains; how does twitter offer up its services for free with out any advertisement? What will the new business model be for internet companies? How do you re-invent the wheel?

I’m kind of both amused and confused by Keith Olbermann’s insistence that he doesn’t “get” how Twitter works. A Cornell grad can’t figure out how to type 140 characters in a box? But seriously, he’s mighty good about other techie communications — he blogs, he appreciates how video sharing on the YouTubes increases his audience. And if David Shuster and Senator Claire McCaskill can take the time to tweet, why can’t Keith?

MySpace doesn’t make money
Nor Facebook
YouTube don’t neither.

But yet I predict that Twitter will buck that trend and make billions and usher in a new golden age of Web 3.0.

Because all great success stories in business come when no service or product is sold.

Or not.

It”s a useless thing unless you want to be a groupie for rest of your life (and all day long).

It’s a toy for some people, challenge for others – but in the end what makes money ? something that offers some utility. Twitter lacks the second part.

A few years (if not months) from now you won’t worry about it. It will exist in the white noise of mobile/internet/universe.

The reason people (i.e. hack journalists like yourself) obsess over Twitter’s business model is because one can say anything about the company without having to worry about being held accountable. It is ALL hypothetical. At the end of the day, the company is smoke and mirrors, heralded by veteran Silicon Valley businessmen who know how to work the PR machine and turn a buck from a sucker. Sure, Twitter actually does something, but something practical it does not, and generate money it definitely does not. Yet here we are discussing it. Why? So you can get paid to write a blog and the NYT can generate ad revenue through CPM (sorry NYT, I’m not clicking on any of the garbage you serve me – I buy your paper though).

The only people really using Twitter are the people writing about it, and the only people writing about Twitter are the ones too lazy to write about anything else. It’s all just digital waste. Welcome to the void. If this is any indication of the direction of the future of journalism, I fear for our world.

The HIT Musketeers March 27, 2009 · 4:06 pm

Personalized and Responsive Information APPs like the TrialX/Twitter APP could be a potential business model. The TrialX APP lets you talk to twitter and find clinical trials that match your health condition, age, gender and location by Qu-tweeting for example, ‘ @trialx CT looking for multiple myeloma trials for 50 yr female in NY’

The above APPs could . Since each QuTweet provides a link to the third party’s site with the search results, Twitter could charge a “referral fee” for each transaction or charge on a cost per 1000 referrals. Since the users intention is clear, these referrals would likely be potential customers.

The HIT Musketeers March 27, 2009 · 4:09 pm

details of the the revenue model related to the APP described above

Here’s a link to survey results of suggestions people have for revenue generation ideas for Twitter.

//tr.im/jaSH

The “Hey–our company can monetize Twitter!” bandwagon that was once full of corporate executives and marketing people is finally beginning to empty. Finally. Woo Hoo! Also, any article or comment to an article that contains the words “revenue generation ideas for Twitter” should be flatly ignored. A good way to reach (some) customers and distribute messages? Yes. A nice tool for expanding a company’s brand? Sure. A brand new revenue stream that can truly affect a company’s bottom line? No way.