Would you keep following Stephen Fry or Jonathan Ross if sponsored tweets started appearing from them?
It discusses the money which can be made from sponsored Tweets by celebrities with the largest followings. We’re told stars with upwards of 100,000 followers can claim serious cash per sponsored Tweet:
But Sean Rad, founder and chief executive, said celebrities with Twitter followers in the millions can command paid tweets in the five-figure range. Rad said his company limits the number of paid tweets to avoid having them regarded as spam…Sadly that isn’t his call to make. Spam is in the eye of the receiver.
And is there really an audience there anyway? How many active followers do these celebrities have among those astronomical numbers of people who signed up on day one of joining Twitter?
Is everybody who signed up for updates from Jonathan Ross still hanging on his every word about walking the dog, or helping his kids with homework? Harsh possibly, but I’d guess the level of engagement with celebrity accounts is far lower than with follower/followed relationships where both people know one another and mutually trust or at least value the opinions of the other - conversation being more engaging than 140 character broadcasts.
As such I imagine these advertiser's messages will often be lost on the vast majority.
Naturally there will be those celebrities, at the shallow end of the celebrity gene pool, who think nothing of such agreements. It will be a natural extension of the revenue stream which results from being famous for being famous. But surely any celebrity who believes there is value in Twitter beyond the amassing of a large following simply ‘because they can’ would balk at the idea, realising their followers would be free to vote with their mouse buttons; those who haven't tuned out already.
Every little helps...
Posted by: ndwillis | Oct 29, 2009 at 15:47
Try saying Social Media without saying Mmmm...
Posted by: Will Sturgeon | Oct 29, 2009 at 16:03